[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] WG Principles
Mark -- Thanks for the quick response! A few comments...
Mark C. Langston 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?
That's one option. My articulation of the issue, however, was not meant
to suggest any particular resolution, but only to state that the
population of the work group will be an issue for our discussion. The
Names Council members, as representatives of the constituencies, should
be in a position to nominate persons from their constituencies to
populate the Working Groups. They should, at a minimum I think, be able
place persons from their constituency on a Working Group.
FWIW, I think the current model works quite well: anyone who wants to
participate can participate (subject to yet-to-be-defined rules of civil
discourse).
>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.
I like the idea of having Names Council members participate in the
activities of the Working Group. At a minimum, it provides an open
dialogue between the WG and the NC.
Your suggestion though that the WG select its own chair is a good one. I
actually prefer the term "moderator" to "chair," as I think it better
describes the work to be done. I also wonder whether, given the other
things they are tasked with doing, Names Council members actually have
the time needed to devote to the Working Groups, especially to chair
them. Someone from the Names Council might be able to address that.
>>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.
How about "Provide appropriate _open_ fora for discussion and debate."
>>o Provide leadership to moderate and steer the debate;
>
>Again, I'll have to disagree here. The WG should choose its
>own leadership.
What I meant to say was that the DNSO should have a procedure that allows
the Working Group members to moderate and steer the debate within the GA.
It was not meant to suggest that the NC do this within the WG. Perhaps I
could have been clearer.
>>o Provide a mechanism to draft any recommendations or reports;
>>
>...isn't this one of the things we're supposed to be creating?
Exactly, I was simply trying to create a check list of things to be done.
>>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.
That will be one of the hardest issues, I agree. The current ICANN bylaws
provide a way for determining whether the Names Council believes that
consensus exists, but IMO, it's a rather crude mechanism based on a NC
vote. (Though it has the advantage of making sure that work is completed
and moved forward.) While I think there must be a better way, I'm not
sure what it is.
I think it would be nice though for the Working Group itself to report to
the Names Council as to whether the WG believes that the elusive thing
called "consensus" exists. Perhaps this group can discern a better way to
allow that to happen.
>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.
I understand and appreciate these concerns. I think the ICANN bylaw
requiring someone from each constituency to participate was to ensure
*minimal* representation for any recognized constituency. So if the model
is that anyone can participate (which I think is preferable), then there
is no need to ensure minimal representation, and that Bylaw provision
should be changed.
Also, I'm not sure I agree that "provisional" recognition is different
than "official" recognition. Isn't the "provisional" recognition
"official," as it came from the ICANN Board?
I do, however, agree that individuals need to be recognized within the
current structure. (While my personal preference would have been for
individuals to participate in all constituencies, I appear to have lost
that argument, so as a distant second choice, I support the efforts of
the IDNO as a segregated forum for individuals). But since the current
model allows anyone to participate in Working Groups, I'm not sure that
the exclusion of certain groups from the constituency process should
affect the work of these groups. (It's effect on the ability of the Names
Council to vote on and forward proposals, however, is another story.)
-- Bret