Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 09:44:07AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 
> Except in WGs, as outlined in ICANN bylaws, namely:  WGs must consist
> of one elected representative from each constituency.

I don't believe the bylaws say anything about elections in this area. 
The Constituencies simply nominate a rep using whatever means they 
like. 
> >2. Working group formation
> >
> >DNSO working groups are the primary mechanism for development of DNSO
> >policies recommendations.  A working group may be established at the
> >initiative of the Names Council, or it may be initiated by an
> >individual or group of individuals.  Anyone interested in creating an
> >DNSO working group MUST obtain the advice and consent of the Names
> >Council and MUST proceed through the formal steps detailed in this
> >section. 
> 
> Doesn't this give ultimate control over the creation of WGs to the NC?
> Since the DNSO must approve WG recommendations anyway, I don't see why
> this is necessary.

By the bylaws, it is the NC that passes policy recommendations on to 
the board.  There is nothing to stop anyone from forming any kind of 
WG or other group, but the NC has the responsibility to ensure that 
the WG follows the proper procedures.  Suppose, for example, that all 
the CORE members got together, had a bunch of private meetings, 
produced a document, and presented the document to the NC as the 
result of a WG. It is precisely the NCs responsibility to ensure that 
WGs are structured properly.

[...]
> >
> >    - Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist
> >      for the planned work?  Consumer interest can be measured by
> >      participation of end-users within the DNSO process, as well as by
> >      less direct means.
> 
> I don't see the point of this.  WG's do not create product; they 
> recommend policy.

Five people may decide that it is important to have a policy that says 
that NC members must wear shoes at all meetings.  This provision is 
designed to weed out frivolous policy.  It certainly could be worded better.

[...]
> >    - Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is
> >      relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to
> >      pursue?  This includes work within the DNSO and elsewhere.
> >
> 
> Understanding by whom?  The NC, the DNSO, the GA?

All who are proposing the WG.
> >
> >2.2. Charter
> >
> >The formation of a working group requires a charter which is
> >negotiated between a prospective working group Chair and the Names
> >Council, possibly with advice from other bodies of the DNSO and
> >ICANN.  A charter is a contract between a working group and the DNSO
> >to perform a set of tasks.  A charter:
> >
> 
> This requirement I don't like, because I still believe the WG should
> be allowed to elect its own Chair or chairs.  The organizers of the WG
> (be it the GA, an individual, or the NC) should determine the Charter.

See the CORE example.
> 
> However, proceeding with an eye to charter formation:
> 
> >   1. Lists relevant administrative information for the working group;
> >
> >
> >   2. Specifies the direction or objectives of the working group and
> >      describes the approach that will be taken to achieve the goals;
> >      and
> >
> >   3. Enumerates a set of milestones together with time frames for their
> >      completion.
> >
> 
> These are good.
> 
> >When the prospective Chair(s), the NC and the DNSO Secretariat are
> >satisfied with the charter form and content, it becomes the basis for
> >forming a working group.  Note that the NC MAY require holding an
> >exploratory Birds of a Feather (BOF) meeting, as described below, to
> >gage the level of support for a working group before approving the
> >charter. 
> 
> Again, the NC should not be sole arbiter in the WG formation process.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >Charters may be renegotiated periodically to reflect the current
> >status, organization or goals of the working group (see section 5). 
> >Hence, a charter is a contract between the DNSO and the working group
> >which is committing to meet explicit milestones and delivering
> >specific "products". 
> >
> >Specifically, each charter consists of the following sections:
> >
> >   Working group name
> >
> >      A working group name should be reasonably descriptive or
> >      identifiable. Additionally, the group shall define an acronym
> >      (maximum 8 printable ASCII characters) to reference the group in
> >      the DNSO directories, mailing lists, and general documents.
> >
> >   Chair(s)
> >
> >      The working group may have one or more Chairs to perform the
> >      administrative functions of the group. The email address(es) of
> >      the Chair(s) shall be included.  Generally, a working group is
> >      limited to two chairs.
> >
> >   Names Council Liason
> >
> >      A NC member who acts as the primary NC contact for the
> >      working group.
> 
> I like this idea, and have supported it in the past.
> Could we agree that this would negate the need for the NC to appoint
> chairs?

That is just a renaming.
[...]

> >      The working group charter MUST establish a timetable for specific
> >      work items.  While this may be renegotiated over time, the list of
> >      milestones and dates facilitates the Area Director's tracking of
> 
> We don't have Area Directors.

I only had two hours on the plane.  For the most part, substitute "NC" 
or "NC Liason" for "Area Director"

[...]

> >A BOF is a session at a physical DNSO meeting which permits "market
> >research" and technical "brainstorming".  Any individual may request
> >permission to hold a BOF on a subject.  The request MUST be filed
> >with the NC who must approve a BOF before it can be scheduled.  The
> >person who requests the BOF may be asked to serve as Chair of the
> >BOF. 
> 
> NO.  If the BOF is to be part of the formal WG process, it must not
> be restricted to physical meetings.  Period.  It's exlusionary.

You misunderstand the intent of a BOF.  They are exploratory, and are 
not necessary for the formation of a WG. There is absolutely nothing 
to stop such exploration from taking place on, say, the GA list.  

There is limited money to support physical meetings.  The main intent
of the BOF sections is to keep people from clogging up physical
meetings with BOFs, which is precisely in line with your concern.

[...]

> >Available time for BOFs is limited, and BOFs are held at the
> >discretion of the NC.  The NC may require additional assurances
> >before authorizing a BOF.  For example,
> >
> 
> Why must BOFs be approved by the NC?  most other professional 
> organizations I'm familiar with allow BOFs to self-organize.

Meeting rooms in Santiago are expensive.

[...]

> >3.  Working Group Operation
> >
> >The DNSO has basic requirements for open and fair participation and
> >for thorough consideration of  alternatives.  Within those
> >constraints, working groups are autonomous and each determines most
> >of the details of its own operation with respect to session
> >participation, reaching closure, etc.  The core rule for operation is
> >that acceptance or agreement is achieved via working group "rough
> >consensus".  WG participants should specifically note the
> >requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest in [2]. 
> >
> 
> No.  Rough consensus has been shown to be contentious, "fuzzy", and
> vague.  Formal voting would be a much better approach, and is in
> fact the method in use currently in DNSO WGs for all matters of 
> concern and substance (e.g., elections).

If you pay close attention, this interchange we are having over this 
document is work of this WG, and it would be, well, inefficient, to 
put every paragraph to a formal vote.  At the base level, the products
of WGs are documents, with a lot of debate over many many fine points.
People are mesmerized by the idea of WGs as deciding big policy 
issues, but their purpose is actually different, in many important 
ways. 
[...]

> >All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
> >participation is encouraged.  A working group will conduct much of
> >its business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
> >periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
> >resolve specific issues and to direct future activities.
> 
> No decisions can be made, nor consensus reached, if all interested
> parties are not involved.  This allows once again for selective
> exclusion.

Sometimes it helps to read the whole document through once before 
commenting.  This point is explicitly addressed.

[...]
> >Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
> >topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
> >or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list
> >consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list. 
> 
> They must not only be reviewed, but must be accepted or rejected by
> the mailing list.

That's what "consensus MUST be reviewed" means.

[...]

> >   - Optionally a request can be added for the WG session to be
> >     transmitted over the Internet in audio and video.
> 
> It should not be optional.  Real-time participation by all interested
> parties should be required.

That requires funding.

[...]

> >NOTE: While open discussion and contribution is essential to working
> >group success, the Chair is responsible for ensuring forward
> >progress.  When acceptable to the WG, the Chair may call for
> >restricted participation (but not restricted attendance!) at DNSO
> 
> No.  Particularly not when the NC is appointing chairs.  We already
> have a chair who has explicitly stated for the record that they think
> individual contributions are worthless and should be ignored.

Please reread.  It says "When acceptable to the WG..."


[...]

> Again, we're placing more and more power into the hands of the NC.
> The NC is a tool of, and not the lord over, the GA. 

Neither characterization is accurate.  The NC is composed of reps of 
the contituencies.

[...]

> >DNSO consensus does not require that all participants agree although
> >this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
> >working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
> >"dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
> >persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
> >can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
> >which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
> >of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
> >better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
> >consensus has been reached. 
> 
> When the WG consists of parties who stand to directly gain or lose
> financially based on decisions made in the WG, as has been the case
> so far in WGs A and C, such a method will not satisfy.  Formal 
> voting should be used.

Formal voting sounds good at a shallow level, but if you think just a
little deeper it becomes much more problematic.  The entities with
financial incentive that you describe above are just as capable of
stacking the votes as anyone else.  We will then see floods of members
in WGs who never say anything, but are only there to vote.  Voting is 
no protection whatsoever.

>  If for no other reason, those making 
> decisions should be put in a position to be held accountable for 
> their decisions, and not be allowed to hide behind the "fuzz"
> of this vague term "consensus" which you non-define above.

Held accountable how?  The actions of WGs have no legal significance.

> >It can be particularly challenging to gauge the level of consensus on
> >a mailing list.  There are two different cases where a working group
> >may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list
> >discussion.  But in both cases the volume of messages on a topic is
> >not, by itself, a good indicator of consensus since one or two
> >individuals may be generating much of the traffic. 
> 
> If it's so difficult, why not use a simple, proven method of
> determining opinion:  formal voting procedures.

Because they take a long time.

[..]

> >
> >   1. Recharter to refocus its tasks,
> >
> 
> The WG should be able to recharter itself, or at least to redefine its
> own goals.

So, for example, a WG to discuss funding of the DNSO should be able to 
change its mind and work on Dispute Resolution Policy, instead?


[...]

> >
> 
> The document should be submitted to the GA for approval.  This process
> is fine, except where you say NC, I would substitue GA.  The NC should
> simply accept the will of the GA and pass the document to ICANN.

That is not the role of the NC as defined in the bylaws.

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