Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 07:14:07PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 
> I see that you are working very hard to try to create an anti-democratic
> DNSO in which a few insiders can cover themselves with the assumed mantle
> of approval of those who are absent.
> 
> Simply stated -- you want silence to be presumed to be assent, I want
> silence to be presumed to be neither assent nor dissent.

Simply stated??? You simplify it to the point of pure nonsense, and
completely mischaracterize my position into a twisted strawman you pull out 
of the air.

> I want clear cut decision points with clear cut votes, you want vague
> "consensus" with no objective measure of whether the measure of
> "consensus" reflects actual points of view.
> 
> Why people wave "consenus" as some sort of high and mighty thing of
> angelic goodness is beyond me.

Oh goody -- an even more egregious strawman.

> I consider "consensus" to be synonymous with "not accountable" and
> suggestive of back room dealings and hidden agendas.
> 
> Let's dispense with new-age warm and fuzzy thinking about "consensus" and
> simply run the DNSO the way that normal community groups, businesses, and
> governments work -- with well stated rules of order and clear cut voting
> on clear cut issues.

"New-age warm and fuzzy thinking" is not the problem here.  The problem is
that you are substituting rhetoric for thinking.  More important, the 
structure you are fantasizing about is not the structure we have.

[...]
> At the higher, GA leve, when a decision point is reached, a call for votes
> is made.

Sorry, that's just not the way it works.

> As for your assertions:
> 
> > > 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.)
> > 
> > You can do that now -- submit a proposal to the GA list.
> 
> The current ICANN bylaws do not say that it is permissible.

You don't get it.  It most certainly is permissible.  You can do it right 
now, people do it all the time.  Moreover, you can gain support on the GA, 
and convince the NC to form a WG on the topic.

>  Indeed, the
> ICANN bylaws only require the NC to recognize submissions from bodies that
> the the NC itself "determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive
> work of the DNSO".

Eh?  Call this statement of yours  "number 1".

> We need to have an express statement that there is no difference
> between working groups chartered from "above" and those that "self-form".

That is precisely the point of this WG.  And if we adopt IETF procedures, of
course, such a requirement will fall out. 

> Indeed, there is bylaw language that "Constituencies or GA participants
> may propose that the NC consider domain name policies or recommendations."
> This implies that others may not (based on the basic canon of
> interpretation that an enumeration of items implies the exclusion of those
> items not enumerated.)

It implies that your statement "number 1" above is false -- the bylaws 
explicitly provide for WGs to be formed directly from initiatives within 
the GA.
[...]
> 
> > Of course, there is the little matter 
> > of how you actually *organize* the GA to write proposals -- the 
> > conventional answer is that a WG is formed...but apparently you want 
> > to create yet another organizational structure embedded in the GA...
> 
> The GA should be able to do whatever if feels like at the moment.  If it
> feels that it should spawn a drafting committee, it can.  If it feels like
> doing an electronic markup it can.

The GA can do whatever it wants.  However, the process by which something 
is submitted to the NC is through a WG.

> As for the IETF process...
> 
> > I certainly don't have the experience in the IETF that Randy does, 
> > but from my experience, your characterization is so badly skewed as 
> > to be devoid of useful guidance.
> 
> Yes, you are certainly right in that one -- you don't have experience
> in the IETF.

I didn't say that, Karl.  I do have experience in the IETF. 

> On the other hand, I've been involved with the net since 1974 and with the
> IETF since the mid 1980's.  And I helped develop a not-inconsequential set
> of the IETF's procedures.  I also participate in a fair number of working
> groups.  I have no reason to mischaracterize the IETF, I have nothing
> to gain by so doing.

Whatever your motive, there is no doubt that you are mischaracterizing the 
IETF. Either you aren't aware of it, or you are doing it deliberately.  But 
it doesn't matter which.  This is clear to me, though I don't have the 
standing to argue the case.  But Randy does.

> I do not believe that I have mischaracterized the IETF and I stand by my
> opinion that that its procedures are inappropriate for use for the
> development of soft policy.

A nice buzz phrase, "soft policy"

> >....  I am certainly not claiming
> > that the IETF model is perfect for our purposes, or that there
> > shouldn't be modifications.  But the fact is that we are talking
> > about "rough consensus" based decision processes using email and
> > other online means for tools -- we are not talking about parliament.  
> > The IETF has been doing this for a long time, and they have lots of 
> > real, rubber-meets-the-road experience with how to do this kind of 
> > stuff. 
> 
> Wow, you weren't kidding when you said that you don't understand the IETF
> process. "...lots of real, rubber-meets-the-road experience with how to do
> this kind of stuff."  Rubbish.
> 
> The IETF has not been doing soft policy "for a long time".  There is no
> experience base, and certainly few, if any, sucessful deployments even the
> few attempts.

I'm not talking about "soft policy", Karl, I'm talking about
rubber-meets-the-road mechanics -- how you actually draft complicated
documents over email, documents that require lots of discussion, very heated
discussion, expert opinions, etc.  WGs are not a form of government, they 
are *working* *groups*.  The product is different, but it isn't that much 
different -- it's still documents, in the final analysis.
> 
> There is no reason whatsoever to use the IETF process as a model.
> 
> We should start with the far more sucessful model of clear process with
> clear cut decision points with clear cut decisions made by actual, counted
> votes, just as is done sucessfully by hundreds of thousands, if not
> millions, of groups every day.

The fact is that WGs will produce documents.  They are constrained by the 
bylaws to report minority positions just as much as they report majority 
opinions.  Therefore the documents will be complex, and sometimes the 
wording of single sentences will be very important. The actual *work* of a 
WG will be very similar to what is done in the IETF.  You rattle on about 
how different "soft policy" is from standards work, but it aint so. The 
actual *work* is very similar in both cases.

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