Re: [wg-d] Overview

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I think -- of Bret's two choices -- (1) is the better answer.  Let me use
WG-C as an example:  We've been working for a few months now, and have
reached rough consensus on a couple of issues, including (1) that there
should be new gTLDs, and (2) the outline of an initial rollout.  We have
not (yet), though, reached consensus on a variety of other issues that must
be decided before the deployment of new gTLDs.  Let's assume, for purposes
of this discussion, that we continue not to be able to reach consensus on
these issues.  Option (2) would mean (since the WG would return no usable
report) that there could be no new gTLDs.  That would be an odd result,
though, since the desirablity of new gTLDs is one of the few issues on
which there *is* consensus.  I think it would be better (albeit
undesirable) for us to report to the NC the points on which we have reached
consensus, and the opposing arguments where we have not.  While option (2),
as Bret notes, would make some of us even more eager to reach agreement, it
would strengthen the hand of those who support the status quo, since
blocking consensus would mean blocking even the possibility of any action.

	I confess, though, that I'm a little confused about how this discussion
fits into Bret's (extremely well done) report draft.  I wasn't a member of
this WG when it did most of its work.  Reading Bret's report without
preconceptions, it seems to set up a model of a WG that does *not* take
consensus as its touchstone.  Rather, under sections 4.1-4.5, all disputed
substantive issues within a WG seem to be decided by simple majority vote.
To the extent that 4.7 contemplates that the WG can't issue a report
without consensus , I'm not sure what the relationship is between that
section and 4.1-4.5.  Am I missing something?

Jon


Jon Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com



At 02:48 PM 10/11/99 -0700, Bret wrote:
>Let me add to the overview from Friday's post that I also added the work 
>we did to assist WG-C to the Draft I circulated. What we have not finally
>resolved is what happens if the position statement and public comment
>process does not move the parties closer together? Assume for purposes of
>addressing this question that there is no "consensus" and that the views
>really are split relatively equally among stakeholders.
>
>Do we
>
> (1) send the separate statements to the NC
>     as the work of the group, even though
>     we lack consensus?
>
>        or
>
> (2) report to the NC that the WG cannot
>     reach agreement?
>
>The problem with option (1) is that, as long as it remains a possibility,
>there is no incentive to compromise. Entrenched parties can move on to the
>NC and see if they can get a better result there. And, if the NC is
>supposed to pass only those policy recommendations on which there is
>consensus, what is the point of sending it a report that, on its face,
>acknowledges a lack of consensus?
>
>The problem with option (2) is that it allows entrenched parties who might
>profit from inaction to use delay as a strategy.
>
>Perhaps there is a (3) that we haven't raised. I know we've talked about
>this issue before, but IMO, we haven't reached agreement. What are people
>thinking?
>
>Also, my reading of the IETF procedures which we've used as a model for
>some of these processes is that a failed WG would have to petition to the
>NC for rechartering. Anyone have experience there?
>
>         -- Bret
>
>