RE: [wg-d] Balanced Working Groups

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

I'd like to try a different approach to the discussion in this group in that
I'd like to hear responses from working group members to the note I'd sent
out about a week ago that John Klensin had asked by forwarded to this group.
I think in reading that note, we can assess some answers, and build a model,
both in line with the work of an interim resolution for WG-C (our immediate
task), and in line with recommendations that will be commented on outside of
this working group. In this approach, we should try to discuss things not
from what we as individuals believe is the best, or our own personal
preference, but rather what we think in the context of the DNSO and what
we've seen of it, would work most effectively and allow as much
contribution, participation, and transparency as possible. The point is that
different approaches to achieve the same result can be used, it's these
approaches we should try to come up with.

I'd summarized several of the main issues wg-d faced at the ICANN meeting
(archives are available). Basically, the working groups have shown that
there are two different approaches that can be taken (neither of which is
desirable to one or another, but wg-d's responsibility is to suggest
something that is functional; encourages participation; allows for full
input and comments by the public at large to reach consensus). I see the
main divides generally speaking between:

1) Advocacy/adversarial versus cooperative
2) Voting versus consensus
3) Design and procedure with initial proposal for vetting versus finished
proposal for sign-off

I would like this group to focus it's discussion on these issues first (or
John's summary), because without addressing some of those issues, its very
difficult to move forward with any details, regardless of which approach is
believed to be best.

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Bret A.
Fausett
Sent:	Monday, August 30, 1999 2:46 PM
To:	Working Group D
Subject:	[wg-d] Balanced Working Groups

>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.

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

Perhaps we can discuss:

(1) what is the purpose of a "balanced" WG, 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?

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

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?

       -- Bret