Re: [wg-d] Names Council Motions

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

It is not WG-D's job to resolve issues that are being worked on by other
Working Groups.

In fact, it would be wrong.  Anyone who wants to work on WG-C issues is
free to go over there and work on 'em.  This Working Group should keep its
nose out of the other Working Groups' business, and vice versa.

> 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? 

I'd let 'em work it out.  If they can't come to an answer then there is no
clear consensus.

Of course, if that group choses to adopt what we have been talking about,
somewhat formalized processes, then that group could work by majority
opinion, not that fuzzy, soft quicksand called "consensus".

But it would be wrong to foist rules upon another working group that is
in-progress.  (We could suggest some procedures, but adoption of them
would be up to the ongoing working group.)  (It's a different matter when
a new WG is formed.)


> How can a Working Group work in such an environment? Is this a problem of 
> size? Represention? 

It is a problem that results from lack of clear processes and lack of
clear means to measure majorities.


> 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.

That motion stinks to high heaven.  It is a violation of the ICANN
bylaws.  Constituencies are required to have one nominated person on
each WG, but that is all.  Forcing the WG's to be composed of NC's
people is violative of the openness provisions of several of the ICANN
bylaws, including our old friend VI-I 2(b).

Moreover, the NC does not have the power to instruct a working group
to adopt a particular result.  The NC merely has the power to evaluate
consensus, not to make the choices itself.

WG-D thus may, and indeed ought, to disregard the above item from the
Names Council.


> 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.

Again, if the NC people want to suggest this procedure, they are
welcome to join this WG and propose this procedure.

And also, the focus on "constituencies" is contrary to the requiremnt
that WG's and other elements of the DNSO be inclusive of "interested
parties".

Thus this working group may, and indeed ought, to disregard the above item
from the Names Council

 
> 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.

First off, the conclusion in the first sentence (a poorly worded
sentence I might add) is not something that the NC is allowed to
conclude.

Second, it is not our business to make decions in lieu of WG-C.

So, my answer to the NC - go take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

Thus this working group may, and indeed ought, to disregard the above item
from the Names Council


> 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.]

Again, that's something for this WG to decide.  If the NC people who
wrote this wish to join this group and advocate that we adopt such a
process, then they are welcome to come, discuss, and add their one
vote.

Thus this working group may, and indeed ought, to disregard the above item
from the Names Council

		--karl--