Re: [wg-d] More WG Agenda Items

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 07:14:18PM +0200, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> Based on my recent and not very happy experiences with alleged WG A, I'd
> like to add a few items to the stew.
> 
> 1) Some thought needs to be given to the ability of WGs to fission into
> various sub-groups.   While forbidding it seems awfully draconian, and
> perhaps even pointless, there needs to be something done to prevent the
> 'divide and conquer' approach to viewpoints put forward by amatures. 
> The profesisonals (e.g. paid lawyers) can attend a potentally unlimited
> number of meetings...people with day jobs cannot.  

I agree with this.

> 2) Thought needs to be given to the relationship between a sub-group and
> and WG, esp. when a sub-group produces a 'report' -- what review is
> appropriate by the WG.

I think this falls out naturally if we handle 1.

> 3) Some number of signatures of the participants in the WG should be
> required on the final report to prevent a 'runaway' chair.

There are a number of subtle problems with this...but the bottom 
line is that a runaway chair will be plenty obvious.

> 4) Should there be provision for statements of dissent (and time built
> into the timetable after the 'final' draft of the final report)?

Yes.  See below.

> 5) Should some non-mandatory guidelines of 'good taste' be developed? 
> E.g.  note the minority views if they exist?

I don't have time to check at this moment, but I believe that 
provision for dissent is required by the bylaws.  Certainly it was a 
major point in the negotiations leading to the DNSO proposal 
accepted by ICANN.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain