[wg-d] Report and Recommendation

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

Dear Working Group Members,

I believe one of the last messages posted to the list was a request for more
time to review the latest draft. More time, we've now had. :-)

What you will find below are two things. First, is a draft report to the
Names Council summarizing our discussion on WG Procedures. Second, is a
draft of the WG Procedures themselves. The WG Procedures have been in
substantially this form for some time, and I expect you have already
reviewed them.

What is new, however, is the cover report to the Names Council below. I have
tried to be true to our discussions, but please let me know your thoughts.
If anyone believes that they so substantially dissent from all or part of
the work that they would like to submit a Minority Report, please let me
know that too.

As this document is very long, PLEASE EDIT YOUR REPLIES, so the entirety of
this message is not included in each follow-up.

This Report and Recommendation need not be submitted to the ICANN Board, as
it relates solely to internal DNSO procedures, but perhaps Theresa can let
us know how the NC would like to handle the DNSO comment period and any NC
review of our work.

If people feel this report is substantially correct, then I'd like to see if
we can revise it, if necessary, and get it to the NC very soon. WG members
will also be able to comment during the public comment period.

Thanks and many apologies for the long list silence.

         -- Bret



----------------------

DRAFT OF JANUARY 31, 2001

To Members of the Names Council:

As you will recall, Working Group D was originally chartered in 1999, with a
mandate to prepare the Processes and Procedures for DNSO work items and to
prepare a "Business Plan" for the DNSO.  A report on our work follows, and
we are also pleased to submit the attached "Processes and Procedures for the
Working Groups of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization" (hereafter,
the "WG Procedures"), which we believe should guide future working group
efforts. 

This report attempts to follow the guidelines recommended in the WG
Procedures for the form and substance of a Working Groupšs Report and
Recommendation. As this Report and Recommendation relates solely to internal
DNSO matters, the Names Council need not forward it or any subsequent draft
to the ICANN Board for final approval.

- Report and Recommendation from Working Group D

A.     Outreach.

The formation of Working Group D was announced on all DNSO lists, and the
instructions for joining were posted on the DNSO web site and have remained
there at all relevant times. The membership of the Working Group was open to
all who wished to participate, and the membership list has never been closed
to new members.

Throughout most of its existence, the Working Group had approximately 50
members, including members of most, if not all, DNSO constituencies and the
General Assembly.  During the course of our work, we had contributions from
dozens of individuals.

This report and the attached WG Procedures should be published for
additional public comment. During the comment period, all members of the
community who have not yet commented on the attached draft will have the
opportunity to do so.

Comments on this draft are encouraged. Those reviewing the WG Procedures
document for the first time during the public comment period should be
mindful of the fact that many of the items in this document represent
compromise positions that were reached in an attempt to find consensus.
Persons submitting comments should take note of the positions previously
expressed by Working Group members (contained in full in the WG's archives
on the DNSO web site) and the fair and reasonable compromises made by the WG
participants to date.

B.    Issue Statement.

In the group's earliest discussions, the Working Group determined that the
work before it to prepare Working Group procedures was difficult enough
without attempting to also focus on the budgetary aspects of the DNSO's
operations. Accordingly, as previously communicated to the Names Council,
the Working Group's focus was devoted entirely to drafting procedures to
promote the bottom-up development of policy initiatives within the DNSO
through the use of Working Groups.

C.    Impact Statement and Risk/Cost Analysis.

If adopted, the WG Procedures should have an equal impact on all
constituencies and stakeholders; no segment of the Internet community is
singled out for disparate treatment.

Because the recommendations made here relate solely to internal DNSO
procedures, the work of other Supporting Organizations should not be
impacted. 

The primary risk in implementing these procedures is that they may be
inadequate to properly find, document and explain DNSO consensus policies,
resulting in the Board, another Supporting Organization, or Network
Solutions (for policies binding it) rejecting a DNSO recommendation.
Addressing this risk, however, has been one of the primary considerations in
preparing the WG Procedures, and the WG members believe that Reports and
Recommendations described in the attached documents should be sufficient for
the Board, the other Supporting Organizations, and the Internet community at
large to understand and comment upon new policies proposed by the DNSO.
Reports and recommendations prepared according to the WG Procedures document
also should be sufficient to meet the definition of a "consensus policy"
under the November, 1999 contracts with Network Solutions, ICANN and the
Department of Commerce.

The costs associated with the adoption of this Report and Recommendation
will be those costs necessary to support (a) the online discussions and
debates of future Working Groups (primarily mailing list administration and
archives) and (b) future room rentals for any in-person meetings at ICANN
Quarterly Meetings. In the opinion of the Chair, these costs are minimal
and/or are already accounted for in current DNSO budgets. Adoption of this
Report and Recommendation should not require the DNSO to incur any increase
in costs above what has already been budgeted.

D.     Recommendations.

The members of Working Group D encourage the Names Council to adopt the
attached WG Procedures as the rules which will govern the creation and
operation of future DNSO Working Groups. An overview of the comments and
concerns underlying the proposed Working Group procedures follow.

1.      Membership.

Open Membership.  The Working Group examined whether membership in Working
Groups generally should be open to anyone who wished to contribute to their
work or limited in membership to persons appointed by some other body (i.e.,
the Names Council, constituencies, or the General Assembly). From the
perspective of the Chair, there was consensus within WG-D that Working
Groups should be open to all who wish to participate. This concept is
described within Section 2.0 of the WG Procedures.

A risk of adopting closed Working Groups is that they will be
unrepresentative of the wide diversity of viewpoints on DNS policy matters,
and consequently, that they will produce initial drafts for public comment
that are inadequate starting points for discussion and revision. Perhaps the
most pernicious effect of closed working groups, however, is that they
simply foster distrust from those who are excluded from their work.
Depending on how a closed Working Group is implemented, it may also violate
the "openness and transparency" requirements of the ICANN Bylaws.

A risk of adopting open Working Groups is that they will promote unruly,
high-volume, cumbersome Working Groups that will be unable to find
consensus. Another risk is that the balance of voices present within the
Working Group will be unrepresentative of the balance of interests that
would be affected by a Working Groupšs policy recommendations or the
interests of the Internet as a whole. As with the risk associated with
closed Working Groups, the possibility exists that open groups will produce
initial drafts for public comment that are inadequate starting points for
discussion and revision.

In balancing these competing concerns, the members of Working Group D
favored retaining open membership, giving the Chair discretion to maintain
order and encouraging Working Group members to use list digest options and
mail filters to handle high-volume lists and/or unruly individuals. (As
discussed in more detail below, an item for future work in the Names Council
or another Working Group may be to examine alternative methods for working
online, such as through web-based message boards.)

The Working Group also expressed some hope that once the public comment
period proves a meaningful way for all interested parties to voice their
concerns and have those concerns specifically addressed, the size of Working
Groups may become more manageable over time. In other words, once the DNSO
community comes to trust that Working Group participation is not the only
way for concerns to be raised, the pressure to join the Working Group solely
out of fear of losing an opportunity to comment may be significantly
lessened.  

But Open to Whom? The attached document specifically contemplates that
Working Group membership is open to DNSO participants ("any GA member
desiring to provide such comments or input," where "General Assembly member"
is used its broadest sense to mean all members of constituencies and the GA
list). At the time that this decision was made, ICANN did not yet consist of
an At Large membership. One question for future consideration is whether
Working Groups should (a) draw their members from the entire ICANN community
(as was done with the call for participants in the current "DNSO Review"
Working Group) or (b) limit DNSO working groups to DNSO members (i.e.
members of constituencies and the General Assembly), preserving input from
the larger, non-DNSO community for any public comment period.

Freezing Membership? Another of the issues the Working Group considered with
regard to membership was whether the membership rolls in a Working Group
should be frozen after an initial enrollment period. Members of earlier DNSO
Working Groups reported that membership appeared to spike in advance of
Working Group votes. (As you will note from a review the WG Procedures
document, periodic votes within Working Groups are a suggested tool for
gauging the relative support for various proposals.) Some members voiced
concern that the addition of Working Group members for the sole purpose of
voting skewed the debate and the consensus-building process. Others believed
that preventing new members from joining equally skewed the debate by giving
unfair weight to the voices of early entrants and penalizing those who
learned about issues impacting them only after the issue had developed
within the Working Group debate. Disallowing enrollment after a certain time
might also encourage persons to join the Working Group solely to protect
their ability to comment.

On balance, the Working Group preferred to leave Working Group membership
open at all times, but to give the Working Group Chair discretion to allow
votes only from those members present on a given date when necessary to
accurately gauge consensus.

2.     Working Group Formation.
 
It was the consensus of the WG that any member of the DNSO could begin the
process for creation of a Working Group: "A Working Group may be established
at the initiative of the Names Council, a DNSO constituency, or it may be
initiated by an individual or group of individuals from the GA." See,
Section 3.0. The final decision on whether to approve the Working Group
rests with the Names Council, but any individual, constituency or other
entity should be allowed to petition the NC directly for approval.

In order to create a WG, there must be a charter and a proposed timeline for
the life of the WG. The criteria by which the NC should assess any petition
and charter for a new WG is set forth in Section 3.2. Approval of a petition
for the creation of WG should be freely given if the criteria described in
Section 3.2 is reasonably met. Not every WG will produce a report that will
be accepted by the Names Council as a consensus policy; some Working Groups
will fail, some will not reach consensus, and some may need to be
rechartered or begin again to complete their work or find a consensus
position. All of these should be viewed as acceptable outcomes.

Once a Working Group is chartered, a mailing list should be created, which
will serve as the primary means by which Working Group members will
communicate their positions and contributions. The Names Council should
appoint a Supervisory Chair to launch the Working Group and oversee the
election of a Chair from the Working Group membership.
 
3.     Online Work.
 
Given the fact that members of a Working Group will reside in different time
zones, different countries, and even different continents, the Working Group
members believed that all work should be performed via online mailing lists
to the greatest extent possible. Such lists make it possible to have
discussions and move forward with work asynchronously. When Working Groups
meet in real time, either in a face to face meeting or in a teleconference,
minutes of the meeting should be distributed to the members of the group
electronically. No Working Group member should be disadvantaged by the
inability to attend remote in person meetings, and work performed in such
meetings should be subsequently discussed and ratified online.

One of items that the group discussed at length was whether Working Groups
should follow formal procedures, such as Roberts' Rules of Order, or
informal processes more conducive to online activities. In the initial
discussions, a clear majority of WG members preferred to adopt formal
procedures for all Working Group operations.

An initial draft of the WG Procedures document attempted to create such
procedures, following the guide of Roberts' Rules of Order. After reviewing
that draft and considering more about what the adoption of Roberts' Rules of
Order would mean in an online community, there was, in the opinion of the
Chair, consensus that rigid, formalized procedures were not the best option.

One of the primary reasons for promoting formal procedures was the
legitimate fear that a non-neutral Chair seeking to push a specific agenda
could manipulate the results of the Working Group process. To address this
specific concern without burdening a Working Groupšs operations with overly
rigid procedures, the Working Group agreed on two specific compromises.
First, the members of a WG are allowed to replace the Chair (Section 8.2) if
he or she fails to comply with the WG Procedures or otherwise fails fulfill
the responsibilities of Chair. Second, anyone who believes that the Working
Group Chair has failed to satisfactorily respond to questions of procedure
is allowed to submit this complaint to the Names Council, together with the
final Working Group Report and Recommendation (Section 4.2). The Names
Council should take seriously all complaints that a Working Group or its
Chair has failed to comply with the WG Procedures, as the validity of such a
claim may call into question the legitimacy of the Working Groupšs results.

With those specific additions, the WG recommended a more light-weight model
for conducting its business, giving discretion to the Chair to conduct the
discussions in any manner likely to produce consensus. Section 4 of the WG
Procedures deals with online work.

4.     Reports and Recommendations.
 
The consensus of Working Group D was that a Working Groupšs recommendations
should be well-documented and specific, to the greatest extent possible. It
is also important that any DNSO consensus policy bind the entire community,
including Network Solutions. As a consequence, the detail required by any
Report and Recommendation was drafted and revised to meet the requirements
of Definition 1 ("Consensus Policies") of the NSI Registry Agreement with
ICANN.

Specifically, a Working Group's final report to the Names Council should
address, to the extent applicable, each of the following:

- Issue Statement: A clear and concise statement of the proposal discussed
in the Working Group and as to which consensus has been reached;
- Impact Analysis: An full analysis of who might be impacted, and in what
ways, by such a policy;
- Record of Discussions: A summary of past discussions (within and outside
the Working Group) and the history of exchanges of views on the proposed
policy; 
- Record of Outreach: A record of affirmative outreach to any segment of the
Internet community that might be affected by the proposed policy;
- Community/Constituency Impact Reviews: A summary and analysis of evidence
as to how the impacted groups (not just the Working Group members) feel
about the proposed policy;
- Minority Reports: A fair statement of points in opposition and a
substantive analysis of their merits and the intensity of the opposition;
- Supporting Arguments: A summary of the best arguments for adoption of the
policy;
- Potential Impact on Other SOs: An analysis of whether and how the proposed
policy implicates the interests of other SOs;
- Risk/Cost Analysis: An analysis of the risks and costs of moving forward
with the policy despite any noted opposition.

The Working Group members did not believe that one single form for a Report
and Recommendation should be imposed on all future Working Groups. Working
Groups should have flexibility to prepare their report in whatever form is
best suited to the nature of the recommendations made. Nevertheless, Working
Group members should consider each of the factors above in preparing their
reports and a complete report should account for these factors in some
measure.

--------------------------------------

Processes and Procedures for the Working Groups
of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization

Version 0.4
January, 2001

INTRODUCTION

The Processes and Procedures that follow are to define the mechanisms by
which the Working Groups of the Domain Name Supporting Organization ("DNSO")
of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") will
gain members, develop proposals, assimilate comments and criticism from the
Internet community, and make reports to the DNSO's Names Council ("NC").

These Processes and Procedures are meant to take advantage of the Internet's
unique ability to allow people in disparate parts of the world to work
together asynchronously to reach a common goal.

PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

1.0     Purpose and Scope

The purpose of Working Groups within the DNSO is to formulate tentative
positions on policies for review and modification by the DNSO's General
Assembly ("GA") (which includes all constituencies and unaffiliated DNSO
participants), to facilitate the development of consensus support for
proposed policies, and, in appropriate circumstances, to incorporate the
views of the GA into a final Report and Recommendation to the NC, and to
provide the NC with a formal record of the support within and impact upon
the Internet community for the work contained in the Report and
Recommendation.

These Processes and Procedures are designed to provide Working Groups with
an appropriate forum for discussion and debate, provide leadership to
moderate and steer debate; provide a mechanism to draft any recommendations
or reports to the DNSO's Names Council; provide a mechanism for publishing
and publicizing the work of the Working Group and seeking additional input;
provide appropriate amounts of time for input and comment; provide a
mechanism for public comment; provide a mechanism for reviewing public
comments and revising draft reports; and ensure that all notices, drafts,
comments and other documents generated by the Working Group are maintained,
archived, and publicly available.

2.0     Membership

The GA is an open community of individuals concerned with the policies
applicable to and development of the Internet's Domain Name System ("DNS"),
and it include members of all DNSO constituencies.  The primary activities
of the GA and the DNSO are performed by committees known as Working Groups.
Working Groups have a specific focus and a lifetime bounded by the
completion of a specific set of tasks.

The DNSO's Working Groups shall consist of designated members but shall
conduct group discussions in a manner that is open for observation by all
and that receives comments and input from any GA member desiring to provide
such comments or input. Participation is open to all. This participation may
be by on-line contribution, attendance at real-time sessions, or both.
Anyone from the Internet community, the GA, or any member of a DNSO
constituency, who has the time and interest, is welcome to participate in
Working Group discussions or provide comments and input into Working Group
discussions.

Because the primary mechanism for accomplishing work will be through
threaded, e-mail discussions, Working Group members are encouraged to
subscribe to the Working Group's mailing list or such other electronic forum
designated by the Working Group Chair. All messages in the Working Group
will be archived online as they are posted,  and all members of the Internet
community will be given adequate opportunity to review and comment upon Work
Group draft Reports and Recommendations. All Working Group members are
encouraged to be active participants.

3.0     Working Group Formation

3.1     Purpose of WGs

Working Groups are the primary mechanism for development of DNSO policy
recommendations. A Working Group may be established at the initiative of the
Names Council, a DNSO constituency, or it may be initiated by an individual
or group of individuals from the GA.

Working Groups are typically created to address a specific problem or to
produce one or more specific recommendations. Upon completion of its goals
and achievement of its objectives, the Working Group is terminated.
Alternatively, with the concurrence of the NC, the WG Chairs, and the WG
participants, the objectives or assignment of the Working Group may be
extended by modifying the Working Group's charter through the rechartering
process noted below.

3.2     Criteria for Formation

When determining whether it is appropriate to create a Working Group, the NC
and the members of the GA should consider (a) whether the issues that the
Working Group may address are clear and relevant to the DNS community,  (b)
the level of effort required and the relative need for a consensus policy in
the specified area, (c) whether the Working Group's activities overlap with
those of another Working Group (if so, it may still be appropriate to create
the Working Group), (d) whether there is sufficient interest within the DNSO
in the Working Group's topic and enough people willing to expend the effort
to produce the desired result, (e) whether there is enough expertise within
the DNSO in the Working Group's topic, and (f) whether the DNSO, and more
broadly ICANN itself, has a reasonable role to play in the development of a
consensus policy in the specified area.

Considering the above criteria, the Names Council, using its best judgment,
will decide whether to pursue the formation of the group through the
chartering process or accept a petition from the GA for the creation of a
WG. The Names Council should not unreasonably withhold approval of a WG if
the criteria noted above are reasonably met.

3.3     Working Group Charters

The formation of a Working Group requires a charter which is prepared by a
prospective Working Group Chair, members of the GA, and the Names Council,
possibly with advice from other bodies of the DNSO and ICANN.

A charter shall: (a) list relevant administrative information for the
Working Group; (b) specify the objectives of the Working Group and describe
the approach that will be taken to achieve the goals; and (c) name the
supervisory chairs.

When the NC is satisfied with the charter form and content, it becomes the
basis for forming a Working Group.

Specifically, each charter consists of the following sections:

* Working Group Name

A Working Group name should be reasonably descriptive or identifiable. (For
example, names such as "Processes and Procedures WG" are preferable to names
such as "WG-D").

* Chair(s)

The Working Group may have one or more Chairs to perform the administrative
functions of the group. To begin, the NC will select a Supervisory Chair.
The email address(es) of the Supervisory Chair shall be included.  The
Working Group shall select a Co-Chair if the Charter so specifies.

* Mailing List Subscription Instructions

An DNSO Working Group must have a general Internet mailing list or other
electronic forum accessible via the Internet. The work of a DNSO Working
Group will be conducted on the mailing list or such other electronic forum.
The Working Group charter must include: the address to which a participant
sends a subscription request and the procedures to follow when subscribing;
the address to which a participant sends submissions and special procedures,
if any; and, the location of the mailing list archive. A message archive
must be maintained in a public place which can be accessed via the web.

* Description of Working Group

The focus and intent of the group shall be set forth briefly. By reading
this section alone, an individual should be able to decide whether this
group is relevant to his or her own work or interests. The first paragraph
must give a brief summary of the problem area, basis, goal(s) and
approach(es) planned for the Working Group. This paragraph can be used as an
overview of the Working Group's effort.

* Goals and Milestones

The Working Group charter must establishgoals for specific work items.
Milestones shall consist of deliverables that can be qualified as showing
specific achievement; e.g., "Draft Policy finished" is fine, but "discuss
via email" is not. The milestone list should be updated periodically as
circumstances change.

Charters may be renegotiated periodically to reflect the current status,
organization or goals of the Working Group.

3.4     Charter Review and Approval

Before the NC has approved a Working Group charter, the charter shall be
submitted for review by the General Assembly. The proposed charter will be
posted to the DNSO-announce mailing list as a public notice that the
formation of the Working Group is being considered.  After a review period
lasting at least a week the NC, after reviewing the comments from the GA,
may approve the charter as-is or it may make changes in the charter.

ONLINE WORK

4.0    Working Group Operation

The DNSO has basic requirements for open, transparent, fair, and, most
importantly, civil participation. Members are expected to abide by the
Process and Procedures for Working Group Operations, discussed in this
Section, and the Chair shall have discretion to enforce these rules as
necessary.

4.1    New Proposals and Ideas

In order to allow new proposals and ideas to be tracked by the Working
Group, to the extent possible, any new proposal or idea should be made in a
new thread with a subject heading that succinctly and clearly identifies its
subject matter. 

4.2    Procedural Questions

Any member of the Working Group may raise a question that relates to the
rights and privileges of the GA or the Working Group members (in
conventional parliamentary procedure, often called a "Point of Order" or
"Point of Privilege") or these rules and procedures. All Procedural
Questions are directed to the Chairs and must be answered. Any Procedural
Question (as well as the response from the Chair) which is not answered to
the satisfaction of the person asking it must be noted in the Working
Group's Report and Recommendation, so the Names Council will have a record
of any potential non-compliance with these Processes and Procedures.

4.3    Voting

A Motion to Approve a draft proposal or report (or any section thereof) may
be made by any member of the Working Group.  Once seconded and approved by
the Chair, such motion shall be put to a formal vote of the Working Group
members. In such an event, the Chairs shall poll, through the list or some
other open and transparent mechanism, the Working Group members. Members
shall respond to the poll by making their opinions known in a message to the
group. Motions that receive a majority of votes cast shall be deemed
approved.

4.4    Real Time Work

Although Working Groups, to the greatest extent possible, must perform their
work online, circumstances may allow Working Group members or subsets of the
group to meet in real-time (in person, via teleconference, or via internet
chat). Decisions reached or drafts developed during real-time meetings must
be reviewed and voted upon on the mailing list.

4.5.    Disputes and Appeals

Disputes are possible at various stages during the DNSO Working Group
process.  As much as possible the process is designed so that compromises
can be made, and genuine consensus achieved; however, there are times when
even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree.  To
achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be subject
to a process of open review and discussion.

To enable such an open review and discussion, Working Groups, when reaching
a position of possible impasse, are encouraged to prepare, as the interim
output of the WG, a report with all the different views that have been
presented in the discussions. In preparing such a statement, the following
elements might be helpful in allowing members of a Working Group, members of
the General Assembly, and the general public assess the viability of the
various positions:

(a) an abstract of the proposal, providing a summary of the group's position
and recommendations;

(b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying
rationale;

(c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal;

(d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
proposal;

(e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they
would be be borne;

(f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal
and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities.

Groups drafting "position statements" should be free, however, to publish
statements in whatever form they see fit. Groups submitting interim
"position statements" should be free to revise and/or compromise those
statements after reading the reports or others.

Working Groups should publish the position statements for a period of public
comment, specifically seeking comments not only on the substance of the
positions but also on the "impact" issues identified in (c) and (e) above.
These steps should serve to clarify each group's respective position,
highlight areas of agreement and disagreement, uncover areas of technical or
economic impracticality, and discern the public support for the various
positions.

These positions papers should not be the end result of the Working Groupšs
efforts, but should serve as tools for finding common ground and addressing
concerns of specific groups. To the greatest extent possible, Working Group
members should strive to find make compromises and find consensus, when
appropriate. 

5.0     Reports and Recommendations

5.1     The Purpose of Reports and Recommendations

The goal of the Working Group process is to produce a Report and
Recommendation for submission to the NC in the event that a consensus policy
recommendation is developed on the issues under discussion or some subset of
the issues. The purpose of a Report and Recommendation is to summarize the
work performed by the Working Group, describe the various alternatives that
the group considered, provide impact analyses from the various
constituencies of the DNSO, and set forth the conclusions of the group.

5.2     The Content of Reports and Recommendations

All Reports and Recommendations should contain the following sections, with
discussions on the listed items as noted:

*  Issue Statement

A clear and concise statement of the proposal discussed in the Working Group
and as to which consensus has been reached,.

*  Impact Analysis

An full analysis of who might be impacted, and in what ways, by such a
policy.

*  Record of Discussions

A summary of past discussions (within and outside the Working Group) and the
history of exchanges of views on the proposed policy.

*  Record of Outreach

A record of affirmative outreach to any segment of the Internet community
that might be affected by the proposed policy.

*  Community/Constituency Impact Reviews

A summary and analysis of evidence as to how the impacted groups (not just
the Working Group members) feel about the proposed policy.

*  Minority Reports

A fair statement of points in opposition and a substantive analysis of their
merits and the intensity of the opposition.

*  Supporting Arguments

A summary of the best arguments for adoption of the policy.

*  Potential Impact on Other SOs

An analysis of whether and how the proposed policy implicates the interests
of other SOs.

*  Risk/Cost Analysis

An analysis of the risks and costs of moving forward with the policy despite
any noted opposition.

5.3  Partial Reports and Recommendations

Recognizing that some issues or policy considerations may be difficult,
contentious, or otherwise not susceptible to consensus recommendations in
the context of a single Working Group, a Working Group that cannot reach a
consensus policy recommendation on all of the issues listed in its Charter
can and should submit a Report and Recommendation on those issues where
consensus was reached.

Such a partial Report and Recommendation should describe the issues on which
consensus was reached and those on which it was not reached. Such Reports
will assist the NC in determining whether a new Working Group is needed to
complete the work.  Completion of a Charter may be an iterative process
requiring successive Working Groups that build on the consensus reached by
previous groups.

5.4  Publication and Comment Period

Each report and recommendation should be published, in draft form, to the
General Assembly and the larger Internet community for debate, comment and
criticism prior to its completion. The Working Group shall provide such
advance notice and comment period as is reasonable considering the length,
complexity, importance, and urgency of the policy under consideration. In
the event that comments necessitate significant changes to the draft in
order to build consensus within the community over the policies at issue,
the Working Group shall publish the revised draft for an additional period
of public comment.

5.5  Submission of Final Reports

Final Reports and Recommendations shall be submitted by the Chair(s) of the
Working Group to the Names Council.

6.0     Working Group Termination

Working Groups are typically chartered to accomplish a specific task or
tasks.  After the tasks are complete, or if the NC determines that there is
no reasonable prospect for such completion, the group will be disbanded. If
warranted or desired, the Working Group mailing list or other electronic
forum may remain available to review the policy proposal as it moves through
the ICANN processes or after it is implemented.

7.0  Rechartering a Working Group

A Working Group may be rechartered as necessary by updating the goals or
milestones . Rechartering ) a Working Group follows the same procedures that
the initial chartering does (see section 2). The revised charter must be
submitted to the NC for approval.
8.0  Working Group Chair

8.1    The Working Group Chair.

The Working Group Chair is concerned with facilitating progress through a
fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the conduct of WG
business.  The Chair must ensure that a number of tasks are performed,
either directly or by others assigned to the tasks.

The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions, on
behalf of the Working Group, regarding all matters of Working Group process
and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the DNSO.  The NC has the
authority and the responsibility to assist in making those decisions at the
request of the Chair or when circumstances warrant such an intervention.

8.2    Election of the Working Group Chair

The Supervisory Chair, appointed by the NC, shall have the authority to
accept nominations and supervise elections for the position of Working Group
Chair.

8.3    Removal of the Working Group Chair

In the event that a Working Group Chair (a) acts contrary to these rules and
procedures or beyond the scope set forth in the Working Groupšs Charter, or
(b) fails to fulfill the responsibilities of a Working Group Chair, as set
forth above, then the Supervisory Chair, upon the reasonable request of one
or more Working Group members, shall have the authority to call for and
supervise a new election for Chair.

Nothing in this Paragraph 8.3 is intended to allow Working Group members to
call for a new election simply because the membership in the Working Group
has changed and a new majority has been formed.

8.4    Responsibilities of the Working Group Chair.

The Chair's responsibility encompasses at least the following:

* Administer WG Process

The Chair is responsible to ensure that the Working Group operates in an
open and fair manner.  For some Working Groups, this can be accomplished by
having the Chair perform all management-related activities.  In other
Working Groups -- particularly those with large or divisive participation --
it is helpful to allocate process and/or secretarial functions to other
participants.  Process management pertains strictly to the style of Working
Group interaction and not to its content. It ensures fairness and detects
redundancy. 

* Facilitate the WG Online Work

The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions are relevant. The
Chair should make sure that discussions on the list are summarized and that
the outcome is well documented (to avoid repetition).

* Organize, prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line formal sessions.

The Chair must plan and announce all face-to-face Working Group sessions, if
any, and the agenda for such sessions well in advance.

* Communicate results of sessions

The Chair and/or Secretary must ensure that minutes of a session are taken
and that an attendance list is circulated. Immediately after a session, the
WG Chair MUST publish  a short report on the session.

* Distribute the workload

 It is the task of the Chair to motivate enough participants to allow for a
fair distribution of the workload.


WG PROCEDURES Version 0.4 / January, 2001