Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	As much respect as I have for Bob, Kent and Bill, I think most of this
isn't right.

	1. I haven't asked for a formal vote on the report, and I agree that a
formal vote would be tidier.  The purpose of such a vote, though, wouldn't
be to ensure that every member of the WG (all 140-odd of us) supports
"everything exactly as stated in the document" — I expect that's an
impossible goal, with or without a vote.  The purpose of a vote would be to
see whether the members of the group are sufficiently satisfied with the
contents of the document to support it.

	So far, there have been *no* suggestions that the report misdescribes the
progress and conclusions of the working group.  I've gotten three comments
— one on the language used to describe the testbed, one on the language
used to describe .naa, and one requesting that I add a short description of
the WG's ongoing work and future agenda.  I'll try to address all three.
(I'm happy to label the last one as my personal contribution, if folks
want.)  It may be that there's a whole flood of such disagreement about to
emerge in the next few days, and if so, that'll be apparent on the list.
But so far, there's no sign of any.  And in the absence of such
disagreement (that is, in the absence of a possibility that the document
would fail in a vote), a vote would just ratify a consensus that's already
apparent.  To the extent that people *do* have problems with anything in
the document, now's the time to write in and say so.

	I do think it's a useful idea that I insert language in the "procedural
history" section of the document making clear that there was no formal
vote, so as to avoid any possible confusion.

	2. The short time frame is, for me, a more serious concern.  One week
isn't a long time for comment, as such things go, and that bothers me.  My
tentative view is that, under all the circumstances, it's long enough for
our needs (if only barely).

	3. My reasoning, in asking that separate statements be supported by five
votes, was that in a large WG there might be many people who held views
that have essentially no support from anyone else, and that it would
constitute not-very-informative clutter if we ended up with a lot of
separate statements, none of them representing a view with significant
support.  But I don't feel strongly about this, and I'm happy to drop it
for the sake of comity.  Anyone who wants to submit a separate statement
can do so.  (This means, Bob, that if you want to submit a separate
statement objecting to the absence of a formal vote, you can do so easily.)

	4. I'd like to hear what other people think on this.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 12:28 PM 3/4/00 -0500, bob broxton wrote:
>I feel Jon has done an excellent job in the attached document.  It is
concise and well
>written.  As I only joined Working Group C in the fall, I am assuming it
is factually
>correct.
>
>I have two recommendations of which I feel very strongly.   Both these
recommendations
>go to procedural fairness.  I want to make sure whoever receives this
document
>(especially the Press Corps in Cairo) is not mislead as to the nature of the
>document.  The two recommendations are as follows:
>
>1.  The report should neither be labelled "Report (Part One) of Working
Group C of the
>Domain Name Supporting Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and
>Numbers" nor referred to as "This document is Part One of the Report of
Working Group
>C" (first sentence of the document).
>
>A report, in order to be labelled a report of a group, needs to have a
formal vote for
>adoption by that group.  Working Group C has never voted to make this
Working Group
>C's "Report, Part One....".
>
>Since the report was posted on Wednesday, March 1 or Thursday, March 2
(depending on
>time zone) at most seven days have been allowed for comment on the report.
 This means
>many members of Working Group C may never have reviewed this document.
Certainly this
>is insufficient time to allow some members to respond with detailed,
thoughtful,
>comments if those members disagreed with any portions of the document.
This is
>especially true since this is a part-time working group in which all
members have
>other responsibilities. The short notice is not Jon's fault (I assume he
was given
>this assignment on very short notice) but it does not change the fact that
the time
>allowed for comments is insufficient for receiving comments on a document
as important
>as one labelled the "Report (Part One)..." of the entire group.
>
>If the head of any group issues a document and labels the document
"Report (Part
>One)" of the group, without ever seeking a vote on the Report from the
group, this can
>be terribly misleading.  It implies the members of the group have adopted
the report,
>including everything exactly as stated in the document.  What is in
reality the report
>of one individual on the progress of the group has the appearance of
formal approval
>of the group for the exact language as stated in the Report.
>
>As the members of Working Group C have never voted on this Report, the
cover page,
>heading and first sentence of this document should be changed to read:
>
>This is a report by the Co-Chairman of Working Group C describing the
progress of
>Working Group C.  This is not a report of Working Group C.   Working Group
C has never
>taken a vote approving this report.
>
>It is also very important that the Co-Chairman in orally presenting this
document
>stress at all times that this document is not the Report (Part One) of
Working Group
>C.  This will prevent anyone from believing that this document, as worded,
has been
>adopted by Working Group C.
>
>2.  The requirement to obtain five votes in order to submit a minority
(dissenting )
>statement should be eliminated.   If someone wants to submit a minority or
dissenting
>report they should be allowed to do so.  To my knowledge, Working Group C
has never
>adopted this procedural limitation on the expressing of one's views.
>
>I suspect since this is a part-time working group, most members have never
meet five
>other members or may not have retained their e-mail addresses.
Considering the
>extremely short time allowed to respond to this document, the requirement
to circulate
>and then obtain the concurrence of five other members, effectively
eliminates most
>minority or dissenting opinions.  This is totally unfair to any member
that would like
>to submit a minority or dissenting opinion.
>
>
>Thank you very much for considering these recommendations.  Again, Jon is
to be
>congratulated on the excellent work he has done in compiling this document.
>
>Bob Broxton
>broxton@erols.com