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

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

While I understand Bob's concern about the desire to have adequate time to
review the draft Report, it is obvious that the timing is not within the
WG's control. I think Jon's statement is on target and I echo the view of
others regarding the terrific work he has done for this WG.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod@cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 5:57 PM
> To: bob broxton; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT
>
>
> 	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
>