[wg-d] Names Council Motions

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

At its meeting in Santiago, the Names Council apparently moved that this 
Working Group consider certain issues as it prepares its final report. 
The text of the motions are quoted below.

Before people react strongly to (a) the implication that the Names 
Council is trying to do our work for us, or (b) the fact that the Names 
Council has declared WG C unworkable, let me provide some background that 
may allow us to continue our work here and also, I hope, address the 
perceived problems raised by the Names Council.

I understand (but Theresa should be able to add more information) that 
the motions below arose because of perceived problems in the operation of 
Working Group C (which focuses on the addition of new gTLDs). Whether the 
problems are real or not, I cannot say. But for purposes of our work 
here, let's suppose that 

   (a) a Working Group is presented with a particularly contentious issue;
   (b) a Working Group is divided into two, and possibly more, equal 
factions;
   (c) some parties have a sizeable business interest in the outcome;
   (d) the discussions are heated and contentious;
   (e) some parties refuse to compromise;
   (f) an obvious compromise or consensus position has not emerged in 
spite of weeks
       (some would say years) of discussion; and
   (g) some faction advocates no action at all.

What do you do? 

Personally, I would prefer not to analyze Working Group C. But the model 
procedures we draft here _should_ be able to account for a hypothetical 
situation as set out above.
   
How can a Working Group work in such an environment? Is this a problem of 
size? Represention? 

Is there any assurance that a new Working Group, either smaller or 
differently proportioned, wouldn't reach the same impasse?

      -- Bret

(p.s. Please feel free to change the subject line, as appropriate, to 
better track any new threads that come out of this discussion or that 
relate to a specific motion below.)

=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=
  From: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990826.NCsantiago-agenda.html
=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=

Motions Regarding Working Group D

Motion 1 as amended: The NC instructs WG-D to include, as one of the 
bodies that may be delegated to work on a specific issue, balanced 
working groups according to the following procedure. Balanced working 
groups will include an equal number of seats for each constituency; each 
constituency can use or leave vacant its seats according to interest. 
Working groups will also include some number (to be decided by NC) of 
representatives of the general assembly plus experts invited by the 
chairs of the working group.

Motion 2: When a working group is created by the Names Council, it shall 
appoint a Supervisory Chair (member of the NC). The Supervisory Chair 
shall immediately call for persons to work on the working group including 
a request to each of the constituencies of the DNSO to provide members 
for the working group. Simultaneously, a Supervisory Chair shall call for 
nominations for the position of Working Chair of the group, who shall not 
be a member of the Names Council. The Supervisory Chair shall assist the 
Working Chair in achieving a working group reflecting a diversity of 
opinion from all stakeholders and all regions.

Motion 3: NC declares that current structure and composition of WG-C is 
contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2.b of ICANN bylaws in the sense that 
it's not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. In this 
regard, the NC requires WG-D within two weeks to provide the names 
council with interim measures to allow the working group C chairs to 
restructure the working group in a way that allows it to perform its 
functions.

Motion 4: All motions should be presented seven days in advance of NC 
meeting for vote at the meeting. Any newly-raised motions at the meeting 
will be voted upon online or in teleconference seven days or more after 
the meeting. [Agenda items should be treated one week in advance except 
if they are urgent.]

=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=
=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=