RE: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Some good ideas to consider. 

I agree that a more parliamentary type approach, or perhaps an approach
where positions are drafted, and then discussed in a moderated fashion where
both positions, questions, and counter positions are presented. Concerns can
be identified. This would require us to work some in an environment where we
can listen to each other -- meaning maybe we need a moderator of process. 

I don't think reconstituting the group and starting over works, either. I'm
willing to try to work toward process improvement.

So, if someone thinks 10 gTLDs are a useful proposal, they would present a
short outline of their proposal, with all considerations.Others could submit
questions.  Comments would be solicited from interested parties (including
from other groups?) and then a moderated discussion could take place, noting
comments.

Ditto if someone proposes introducing only 1-3, or 100...

If we followed this approach, would we need to select a neutral moderator?
Marilyn
riginal Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@ebarn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 11:59 PM
To: Bret A. Fausett; Working Group D
Subject: Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"


>
>We have until next Wednesday to make a report to the NC on "interim
>solutions" as discussed in the resolution above. I see several options
>based on my own thoughts and some of the posts to date. There may be
>other options. These are in no particular order.
>
>   (i)  Report that WG-C should continue its work, that the issues
>        with which it has been presented are very contentious, and
>        that any lack of movement is not surprising. Suggest that the
>        members of WG-C break into smaller groups with members who
>        have alligned positions and have each of the groups publish a
>        report to the GA for discussion and debate.
>
>  (ii)  Report that WG-C should continue its work, that the issues
>        with which it has been presented are very contentious, and
>        that any lack of movement is not surprising. Suggest that the
>        leaders from various "factions" meet in real time, via
>        telephone or the net, to seek a compromise. Have any compromise
>        reported to the Working Group and GA to see if it has wider
>        approval.
>
> (iii)  Report that WG-C should continue its work, that the issues
>        with which it has been presented are very contentious, and
>        that any lack of movement is not surprising. Suggest that the
>        members of WG-C be given more time to find their way on their
>        own.
>
>  (iv)  Report that the process issues themselves are very difficult
>        to resolve and suggest that WG-C, as well as all other WGs,
>        cease work until WG-D can submit its final proposal.
>
>Whatever we do, I personally counsel against any "interim measure" that
>would disband WG-C and rebuild it without some of its current members
>(for example, recast it as a "Balanced Working Group"). We would bring
>charges that the DNSO was trying to find consensus by excluding voices,
>which, at the end of the day, is counterproductive.


All of these are great solutions Bret, and I agree with your bottom line
conclusion. Having just come off a 'read-a-thon' attempt to catch up on the
last two days traffic in WG-C, I also agree that something must be done. My
gut reaction is that because of the contentious nature of the subject
matter, that the leadership of the group has not taken a strong enough role
in moderating and guiding the proceedings. Lately it feels like every new
thread breaks down into arguements over semantics. Shakespeare said it best
(apologies to the literati) when he penned "full of sound and fury, yet
signifying nothing".

Deep down I do believe that consensus on our charter questions exists, but
we need a stronger hand at the helm in order to get us there. I hope that
the current chairs take these comments in the spirit they were intended.

I would be willing to fully back your option (iii) with the modification
that leadership of the group should be recast with an aim to establishing a
more parliamentary type approach to ensuring order, good faith and forward
movement in the discussions.

-RWR