Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

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

On 2 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>
>First, WGs are not representative structures; they are, as the name
>suggests, groups that are gathered to do work.  Confusing them with
>representational structures would be a terrible mistake: they are 
>not and cannot be such.

ICANN Bylaws
Section 2:  THE NAMES COUNCIL 
  
(b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
process of the DNSO.  It shall adopt such procedures and policies as
it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the
designation of such research or drafting committees, working groups
and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry
out the substantive work of the DNSO.  Such bodies shall include at
least one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency,
and shall provide appropriate means, as determined by the NC, for
input and such participation as is practicable under the circumstances
by other interested parties.  Any reports or recommendations presented
to the NC by such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by
the public for public review and comment; absent clear justification,
which shall be publicly stated at the time of any action, the NC shall
not act on any report or recommendation until a reasonable time for
public comment has passed and the NC has reviewed and evaluated all
public comments received. The NC is responsible for ensuring that all
responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a decision
by the NC.


...as you can see, Kent, by ICANN's own bylaws, the WGs are indeed
meant to be representational structures.

>
>Second, the key to the WG is the charter.  It is a document that
>represents an agreement between the WG members and the NC -- if you
>will, a contract of sorts.  Generally in the IETF the area director
>and the parties proposing the WG will iterate several times over the
>charter, to be sure that the charter describes a parcel of work that 
>can meaningfully be performed.

Great.  This isn't the IETF.

>
>Third, the role of the chair is greatly misunderstood.  In the IETF
>the chairs are always approved by the area directors, because the
>role of the chair is to be responsible for the successful completion
>of the work.  That is, a chair is not an elected representative of
>the WG members, ever (*).  A far more accurate model would be to
>consider the WG chair as an *employee* of the IESG who has the *job*
>of bringing the WG to a successful conclusion.  This is, of course,
>consistent with the model of a WG as a group that does work. 
>

Great.  This isn't the IETF.

[...snip...]

>In any case, the "legislative history" clearly indicates that IETF 
>processes are an underlying model for the development of policy in 
>the DNSO; I think it is necessary to study the applicable 
>documents describing IETF structures, and use them as a starting 
>point.

No, they are not.  If you have any doubt, re-read the bylaw above.

>
>================================================================
>
>(*) This point is worth a bit of comment.  IETF WGs are completely
>open -- there is no defined membership of a WG, people enter and
>leave as their interest and free time dictates.  Thus, there is never
>at any time a meaningful "voters roll".  Voting simply does not work in
>an open collaborative structure like a WG.  Hence the emphasis on 
>consensus processes, and novel thermometers of consensus like the 
>famous IETF "hum".

Wonderful.  (say it with me now):  "This isn't the IETF!"  There
can be a meaningful voters roll, even within the IETF.  You simply
nail down exactly who is a member at the time the vote is called.
Those people are the voting body.

Just because the IETF presents us with *A* model from which to work,
does not imply it is *the* model from which to build.  I would argue
(and I will, too) that for a body such as ICANN, parliamentary
procedure would be a good launchpad for us.  Perhaps the real
meat is somewhere between the two extremes.  But Kent, you've made it
more than clear that you want our WGs to run just like those in the
IETF, both here and in other fora, now and in the past.  You always
leave out things like:  The chair has the power to ban members from
participation, the chair has the power to exlude people from 
conversations, etc. etc. etc.  

In an environment as politically charged and often polarized as 
this, implementing IETF procedures would be handing a loaded gun and
a hunting license to whoever holds sway in the WG.

I simply won't allow that to happen.  The reason IETF WG procedures
work to the extent that they do is that the people participating in 
them are debating technical issues from which they normally don't
stand to profit directly.  The same can't be said of ICANN.  The
IETF procedures are too lax, too malleable, and allow far too much
discretion to be placed in the hands of too few.

-- 
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