Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > My proposal:  Rather than using the IETF process in which working group
> > output is reviewed by increasingly smaller bodies
> 
> i am continually shocked by your mis-characterization of the ietf process.
> the wg output is immediately reviewed by the ENTIRE IETF immediately it
> leaves the wg.

(I disagree that I'm mis-characterizing, but let's proceed on the DNSO
part...)

In the DNSO we need a system that does not mistake silence for assent,
does not let vague readings of "consensus" be used to push through
proposals which are not really broadly supported.

In the IETF we have implementation as a hard wall into which bad ideas
will crash and burn, in the DNSO we have no such objective feedback to
rein-in ill-conceived policy choices.  The DNSO needs to be more
conservative.

In the IETF, a working document is published.  It goes onto a "track", a
most descriptive word.

There is no IETF-wide vote for acceptance of working group publications,
only room for objections.

Putting a document on a table and allowing people to object to its content
hardly constitutes "immediately reviewed by the ENTIRE IETF".

In the IETF the absence of objection is taken as consent.

In the DNSO, we need the converse, we need a system in which silence is
taken as rejection or abstention, not assent.



> > we ought to be adopting a process in which working group output is
> > reviewed, re-evaluated, and explicitly re-accepted by increasingly larger
> > bodies.
> 
> oh?  this is a grand statement, but it is not at all clear what it means
> other than mandating monitonically increasing size of review bodies.  it
> says nothing about their composition, goals, ...

It says that working group output ought to be placed before the General
Assembly for the GA's review, amendment, and explicit vote to accept or
reject the proposal (including the GA's amendments, if any.)

As for "composition" -- We don't need to add any more ways of keeping
people out of working groups, the door should be open to anyone who is not
disruptive.

As for "goals" -- They are a good thing.  Some working groups could be
created around a pre-written charter or question.  But that's not to say
that other groups couldn't form around a vague issue and then figure out
their own goals.

There is no reason to coerce all working groups into the same rigid mold.


> > These working groups ought to be able to come up with proposals that they
> > submit to the DNSO GA.  (Indeed, any individual should also be able to
> > submit a proposal, working groups need not have the sole perogative to
> > make proposals.)
> 
> in your opinion, what is the purpose of working groups?  maybe we should
> just abolish the concept and have a free for all.

I'd prefer to let working groups be just that - gatherings of interested
people who come up with a proposal.  The evaluation of their work would be
in the context of the General Assembly as a whole.

If one thinks of this, the GA is simply a committee of a supporting
organization, i.e. a committee, of an ICANN that itself is simply a
committee covering three internet topics.

We don't really need to add yet another layer of commitee depth.


> >> and a significant proportion of drafts go back for wg changes after iesg
> >> review.
> > As you say, the drafts can only be "rejected" and sent back.  
> 
> i did not say that.  in fact i specifically said otherwise.  iesg members
> work at a very detailed level with the wg chairs, draft author/editors, and
> wgs as a whole.

Don't get upset here -- both of us are saying the same thing -- that the
IESG can use its power of rejection to nudge (or strongly push) a working
group in a pariticlar direction, but the final choice of whether they go
in that direction is up to the working group, even if that means risking
an IESG that refuses to accept the results.

In the DNSO we don't need to do this -- we can simply let the GA revise
the work of a working group without the need to send it back if the GA
thinks that's the way to do it.  The GA could well send it back or form a
new working group.  There's no need to entrench the way the GA can react
other than to say that the GA must clearly approve anything it sends up
towards the ICANN board (whether that be directly or via the NC.)


> in general your continued characterizations of the ietf processes are very
> misleading and often amazingly false.  i suggest we ignore what you think
> the ietf process might be and try to focus on what the dnso wg processes,
> should you even care to keep the concept of wgs, might be.

I'm happy to not use the IETF process as a model, I find it an
inappropriate model for the DNSO.

But I am not mis-characterizing it.

		--karl--