RE: [wg-d] Balanced Working Groups

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

At 00:05 31/08/99 -0400, Bret A. Fausett wrote:

>Personally, I would not like to see the Working Groups supplant the GA as
>the place where public comments are considered. A draft ought to be
>prepared based on the early thinking of the WG, published for comment,
>and then revised (perhaps by others in the WG other than the original
>drafter), and then published again as revised. Depending on whether the
>changes are substantial, you might go through multiple iterations.

I fully agree with you. That is why we should start talking abut procedure 
from the top to the bottom. That is, before we consider how WGs work, we 
should talk about what is done with the output of the working groups.

This output has to be published for public comment for a reasonable period 
of time, and then restudied either by the WG (if there is new input that 
was never heard by the WG), by the Names Council itself (if there are no 
major comments agaist the proposal), or by a new body  (WG or Committee) 
designated by the Names Council if it was necessary.

If a very different new report was produced, the Names Council would have 
to -once again- ask for public comment before sending it to the ICANN 
Board. The ICANN Board will have to -once again- ask for public commend 
before approving it.

This type of process, as John pointed out, does not require wide 
participation in the basic working groups, but it does show that it is 
reasonable that the WGs produce reports that do not contradict the opinions 
of  a majority of the Names Council, as a lot of work would be wasted.


>If the larger community sees that the commentary period is meaningful and
>that the WGs are incorporating their concerns, then we'll see less of a
>rush to join WGs than we're seeing now.

Agree.

>If I had to choose between John's two models (below), I'd say that I'd
>rather see the WGs follow the "initial proposal for vetting" model. But I
>don't see why we can't do both. Propose something for discussion and then
>move it forward. The only obstacle I see is that too often the original
>drafter becomes too attached to his or her initial draft, but we might
>solve that by having a second drafting team charged with incorporating
>comments and suggested revisions.

This is related to the resolution of the Names Council. Among all the 
bodies that the NC may create to work on an issue, one of them must be a 
Balanced Working Group... others can be Open Working Groups, Committees of 
the Names Council, etc... depending on the issue and the result that the NC 
wants from the Working Groups.

Javier