Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 2 August 1999, "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com> wrote:


>Organization
>
>o  	Provide for the ability of the Names Council to propose 
>   	a Working Group and fill that Working Group with persons 
>   	interested in and capable of accomplishing the proposed work;

Are you suggesting here that the NC should be allowed not only to
create WGs, but to fill them with people they pick, and not allow
outside participation?

I'll add one here:

o      Allow the WG to elect its own chair or chairs, as opposed
       to having the NC appoint one.  If necessary, a NC liason may
       be appointed, but said liason will not serve in any chair
       capacity.


>The Work
>
>o   Provide appropriate fora for discussion and debate;

...inasmuch as said fora are inclusive and do not serve to directly
or indirectly exclude participation by one or more interested parties.



>o   Provide leadership to moderate and steer the debate;

Again, I'll have to disagree here.  The WG should choose its
own leadership.

>
>o	  Provide a mechanism to draft any recommendations or reports;
>

...isn't this one of the things we're supposed to be creating?


>Reports
>
>o	  Provide a mechanism for determining whether "consensus" exists
>    on a proposed report, and if not, ensuring that all serious 
>    points of view are included in the final report;

...and more globally, provide a consensus mechanism, period.  The WGs
need a method for consensus determination.


I'll also add the need to seriously consider how WGs are formed.
Right now, no WG within the DNSO is valid, as it fails to meet the
by-laws, which require one elected representative from each officially
recognized constituency.  First, because there are no elected reps in
the WGs, and second, because there are no officailly recognized
constituencies as of this date.  Every constituency that currently
exists has only been provisionally recognized, and will not be
officially recognized until the 1999 ICANN BoD meeting.

Ignoring that for the moment, there's a serious issue of over and
under-representation within WGs.  Should WGs have mandatory
participation, as the ICANN bylaws suggest?  Should they be open to
everyone?  What about the GA?  What about constituencies that are
currently petitioning the ICANN BoD for official recognition?

All of these speak to the larger issue of legitimacy, and need to
be addressed.  The failure to have issues like this resolved before
work begins leads to arguments like those found in WG-C.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org