[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-d] Freezing WG Membership
Chris, I doubt that I disagree with your point. It seems correct.
I think many of the WG-C members are disappointed in the NC's actions. I
know I am. The NC should not have ignored the work of the WG-C or concluded
that it, the NC, represented a consensus of the Internet Community rather
than the WG-C, which at least debated the gTLD issue for nearly a year AND
maintained an open membership. Of course, one could challenge whether the
WG-C really represented the Internet Community, but the irony of having that
challenge raised by the Names Council should not go unnoticed. While the NC
need not rubber stamp the work of its WGs, it ought to have very good
reasons for ignoring consensus recommendations, and those reasons should be
formally published on the DNSO website and transmitted along with the NC's
recommendations to the ICANN Board. As it stands, the NC has harmed the
integrity of the DNSO decision-making process. I doubt that this is a
maneuver that the ICANN BOARD should feel comfortable about building upon in
July. Certainly, there are enough allegations that ICANN operates against
consensus, rather in response to it.
At the very least, the NC should adopt a policy that it will NOT depart from
consensus positions developed in open-membership WGs, unless a written
statement substantially justifying that determination is posted on the DNSO
website.
Rod Dixon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Ambler
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 2:47 PM
> To: 'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'; 'Timothy Denton'; 'Antony Van Couvering';
> 'Bret A. Fausett'; wg-d@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-d] Freezing WG Membership
>
>
> But the results are directly opposite of what you say here. The
> NC decided, in their infinite wisdom, that the WG did *NOT*
> represent consensus, despite its open membership rules.
>
> So what's the point, when the NC can just throw away any
> results with which is doesn't agree?
>
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> chris@the.web
> http://nic.web
> http://webtld.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Rod
> Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 6:42 AM
> To: Timothy Denton; Antony Van Couvering; Bret A. Fausett; wg-d@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-d] Freezing WG Membership
>
>
> I agree. In fact, I think keeping the WG-C open was a good idea
> particularly
> because that WG had a mandate to determine the consensus of the Internet
> community. If the NC/DNSO establishes a WG to work out the details on a
> policy/technical matter where the consensus is already clearly
> established,
> then freezing the WG membership after the passage of an agreed
> upon time may
> be an appropriate practice.
>
> Rod
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Rod Dixon
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
> Rutgers University School of Law
> Camden
> www.cyberspaces.org
> rod@cyberspaces.org
>
> General Counsel
> FreeBuyers Net, LLC
> dixon@freebuyersnet.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Timothy Denton
> > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 3:45 PM
> > To: Antony Van Couvering; Bret A. Fausett; wg-d@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [wg-d] Freezing WG Membership
> >
> >
> > Brett and Others:
> >
> > I am not prepared to establish a rule that all working groups should be
> > either open or closed after a certain date, and would prefer a rule that
> > allows for closed groups exceptionally when the circumstances
> > warrant. These
> > would include: a) tight deadlines and
> > b) a narrow, technical mandate
> >
> > It occurs to me that certain groups, such as WG-D, could have tight well
> > defined mandates and be better off with a closed structure
> after a certain
> > period.
> > On the other hand, much of this may be rearranging deck chairs on the
> > Titanic.
> > Having seen what the Names Council did with WG-C's 6-10
> recommendation, it
> > is clear that Working Groups do not really matter as regards fundamental
> > questions. Perhaps this is inevitable, but it is unfortunate. It would
> > appear from the decisions of the Names Council that the IP
> > constituency will
> > roll over everyone in each new forum, to the extent they can or
> that they
> > are allowed to.
> >
> > Keeping a group that concerns itself with the large issues open
> during the
> > course of its mandate would seem to me effective at preventing a
> > closed and
> > partial list, and to allow for people to get interested as the
> issue heats
> > up.
> >
> > I do not see that stipulating a period after which membership is closed
> > will solve, alleviate, aggravate, or cause a stacking problem by
> > itself.The
> > real concern is that working groups matter for little in the
> > councils of the
> > great.
> > Timothy Denton, BA, BCL
> > tmdenton.com
> > Telecom and Internet Law and Policy
> > 37 Heney Street, Ottawa, Ontario,
> > Canada, K1N 5V6
> > phone: 1-613-789-5397
> > tmdenton@magma.ca
> > fax: 789-5398
> > www.tmdenton.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Antony Van Couvering
> > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 2:13 PM
> > To: Bret A. Fausett; wg-d@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [wg-d] Freezing WG Membership
> >
> >
> > Agreed
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Bret
> > > A. Fausett
> > > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 12:44 PM
> > > To: wg-d@dnso.org
> > > Subject: [wg-d] Freezing WG Membership
> > >
> > >
> > > >From my participation with WG-C, I noted that the group often became
> > > side-tracked by the fact that new members were joining throughout
> > > its work.
> > > It was a distraction, an annoyance, and may have kept the group from
> > > becoming more cohesive than it might otherwise have been. (I
> thought it
> > > worked very well, actually, given its tasks and history.)
> > >
> > > Open membership in WG-C was important for that particular
> > group, coming as
> > > it did early in the life of ICANN. Last year, it was quite
> possible that
> > > someone might have been interested in the creation of new TLDs
> > > but ignorant
> > > about ICANN. I doubt that is the case any longer. We might now want to
> > > consider freezing the membership of a WG at some defined
> moment in time.
> > >
> > > The primary purpose would be to create cohesiveness, build
> > community, and
> > > encourage compromise. With a changing membership, compromise
> > > reached one day
> > > can be attacked the next by a new member not privy to the long
> > > conversations
> > > and debates that went into it.
> > >
> > > Something like a firm 60 day enrollment window at a working
> > group's launch
> > > would also serve to partially protect WG votes from being stacked.
> > >
> > > On the negative side, such a rule might give a false sense of
> > > consensus, by
> > > pushing criticism to the end (in the public comment phase).
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > -- Bret
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>