RE: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures

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

Bret - thanks much - looks like it didn't make it the first time for some
reason.

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Bret A.
Fausett
Sent:	Monday, September 13, 1999 11:45 PM
To:	Wg-d
Subject:	[wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures

Not sure if this made it onto the list. Theresa sent earlier today. --
Bret

---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date:        09/13  4:49 PM
Received:    09/13  5:07 PM
From:        Theresa Swinehart, Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
CC:          'Bret A. Fausett', baf@fausett.com

All -

Please find below the report prepared by Bret and myself regarding WG-D's
interim measures for WG-C. This report will be forwarded to the NC by
close
of business Tuesday, September 14th, central European time. It will be
discussed on the NC call on Wednesday, September 15th.

Theresa



To:	Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization

From:	Co-Chairs of Working Group D

Re:	Interim Measures

Date:	Thursday, September 9, 1999


On Thursday, August 24th, 1999, the Names Council of the DNSO adopted a
resolution requesting that Working Group D come to an interim solution for
Working Group C. Working Group D began undertaking this request shortly
after the resolution was passed.

Background and Summary of Discussion:

Discussion began with whether the NC had the authority to request WG-D to
come to an interim solution for Working Group C. Views differed, but
overall
agreement was that the NC requested this, and it was within the
responsibility of WG-D regarding process issues. Whether interim or
permanent, process issues did fall within the scope of responsibility of
the
Working Group.

After conclusion of this discussion, there were several lines of dialogue.
There were two posts suggesting that WG-C should cease work until this WG
can complete its report, and a majority of the posts suggesting that WG-C
should continue working, though trying something new to move its work
ahead.
As for what the "something new" should be, a number of posts have
suggested
asking the members of WG-C to summarize their work into written position
statements, both as a means to share the positions with the larger
Internet
community and as an exercise to focus the group's thinking.

As to what should become of these statements, there seems to be some
consensus that there will be a public comment period, and perhaps the
opportunity to revise or compromise the statements. There has also been a
suggestion that these position statements may actually represent the final
work product of WG-C. It was reiterated that WG-C should not be closed
down,
and it was emphasized that its work should be completed. The
Recommendations
WG-D forwards are as an interim solution to help the process move forward.
These recommendations include two main procedural points: 1) determining
current situation, identifying current areas of disagreement; 2)
encouraging
greater participation by attempting to limit the amount of postings to the
list-serve per day to ensure all interested parties can participate.

Working Group D recommendation:

Working Group D recommends that the NC ask the working group to:

1)  prepare -as the interim output of the WG- a report >with all the
different views that have been presented in the discussions. The interim
report, as well as the final report from a working group, should contain
the
following elements:


(a)	a detailed overview of the proposal;
(b)	a full analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the
proposal;
(c)	the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
proposal;
(d)	the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they
would be be borne;
(e)	a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the
proposal
and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities.


>
Such a proposal should provide for "rebuttals," so that once each group
had
read the others' reports, they could have time to draft a short reply. It
might then be helpful to publish the report for a public comment. You
might
even allow each group to revise (hopefully, compromise) their reports
prior
to submitting a final output of the WG to the NC.

2)  Seek to encourage participation by all interested parties by seeking
to
limit the list members' posts per day (say, to two).  This could have two
beneficial effects.  First, it would cut down on the volume, and allow
people to participate in WG-C without having it take over their lives.
Second, list members faced with this limitation might take care to make
their two posts per day count - leaving unimportant or tangential things
unsaid, and concentrating on making substantive comments on the main
issues
before the group. **

Conclusion:
Working Group D recommends that WG-C makes sure that all interested
parties
really taking part.  Either the co-chairs of the WG need to make sure to
have input from all, or that the representatives involved are working with
their constituencies. IN order to be sure not to discourage participation,
the environment must encourage participation. Mechanisms of controling
amount of traffic on WG-C list-serve, and providing interim report on
positions and differing views will allow the WG-to determine where they
may
be close to compromise, and where they may not.

Working Group D believes that WG-C can reach possible compromise. ** WG-C,
as currently constituted, with its current leadership, is in a position to
find compromise, consensus solutions to at least part of the problem if
left
to find its own way.
The recommendations by WG-D are intended to move this process forward, and
ensure ability for all interested parties to participate.



Co-Chairs of Working Group D
Bret Fausset and Theresa Swinehart







----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------