Re: [wg-d] Balanced Working Groups

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> This body has been asked by the Names Council to consider the adoption of 
> "balanced" working groups for some tasks in the DNSO. 

Let us speak plainly.  Balanced" is being used as a euphemism for
"manipulated to achieve a desired result".

Certainly real fairness is not accomplished by using Constituencies as the
basis for ascertaining the relative weight of all concerned parties. There
is a 6:1 ratio of commercial to non-commercial constituencies, not to
mention the fact that individuals domain name owners still have no
constituency recognized by ICANN

I might add that perhaps the NC should stop to think that WG-C has a tough
issue to address and perhaps there is no clear cut dominant point of view.



> Perhaps we can discuss:
> 
> (1) what is the purpose of a "balanced" WG

The phrase "puppet string" comes to mind.  According to the ICANN bylaws,
the WG's are the place where substantive policy is created, the NC's sole
job in that matter is to count consensus noses and pass the result to the
ICANN board, nothing more.

The attempt of the NC to impose "balance" is an improper interference with
the legitimate sphere of WG-C.

If the NC folks are so concerned about WG-C, then let them go there and
try to make their point as equals rather than by issuing decrees from
above.

We should not be the NC's henchmen.


>, as opposed to a group anyone 
> could join that might not have the same proportional representation as 
> the Names Council? Or rather, what is the problem that "balanced" working 
> groups is proposed to solve and is this the right solution?

The mix of interests found in the names council is highly skewed.

Using the NC as a model is not useful except, perhaps, as a model of how
not to do it.

 
> (2) when would "balanced" working groups be preferred to "open" working 
> groups? Always? Never? In the most contentious cases? 

Manipulated working groups are *NEVER* to be preferred, except from the
point of of the puppet master.

Fair working groups are those that are open to all voices.

Fair working groups do not always reach results.  That's simply a fact of
life.


> I had also perceived some "consensus" in the earlier discussions in this 
> group that open working groups (the current model) were preferable to 
> other models. Was I correct? 

Yes, fully open working groups are the correct model.  And, in fact, they
are the only model consistant with ICANN's obligations under the White
Paper and ICANN's own bylaws.

		--karl--