[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] WG Principles
On 2 August 1999, "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com> wrote:
>>
>>Are you suggesting here that the NC should be allowed not only to
>>create WGs, but to fill them with people they pick, and not allow
>>outside participation?
>
>That's one option. My articulation of the issue, however, was not meant
>to suggest any particular resolution, but only to state that the
>population of the work group will be an issue for our discussion. The
>Names Council members, as representatives of the constituencies, should
>be in a position to nominate persons from their constituencies to
>populate the Working Groups. They should, at a minimum I think, be able
>place persons from their constituency on a Working Group.
I would think that the constituencies themselves should elect whom
they wish to represent them in the WGs. We should be careful about
placing too much power in the hands of the NC. As the NC now stands,
it is not yet representative. Until there's a duly elected,
fully-seated NC composed of individuals from all officially recognized
constituencies (which will occur at the 1999 ICANN BoD meeting; no
constituency has yet been officially recognized -- they are all
provisionally so), I will continue to be very nervous about any powers
granted the NC.
>
>FWIW, I think the current model works quite well: anyone who wants to
>participate can participate (subject to yet-to-be-defined rules of civil
>discourse).
However, based on the conversation in the NC July 26 teleconference,
they want to limit participation to the constituencies. This at the
very least rules out both the GA and those people who are currently
petitioning for ICANN constituency recognition.
>
>I like the idea of having Names Council members participate in the
>activities of the Working Group. At a minimum, it provides an open
>dialogue between the WG and the NC.
I have no problem with NC members participating. I do not, however,
feel good about having the NC appoint a chair/moderator/whathaveyou,
who is then responsible for document preparation. If there's any
further evidence necessary that this process is flawed, I give you
the current controversy surrounding the WG-A report, and the claims
that it not only is not a consensus-generated document, but that it
in no way resembles the work of the group.
>
>Your suggestion though that the WG select its own chair is a good one. I
>actually prefer the term "moderator" to "chair," as I think it better
>describes the work to be done. I also wonder whether, given the other
>things they are tasked with doing, Names Council members actually have
>the time needed to devote to the Working Groups, especially to chair
>them. Someone from the Names Council might be able to address that.
>
I wonder that as well.
>>>o Provide appropriate fora for discussion and debate;
>>
>>...inasmuch as said fora are inclusive and do not serve to directly
>>or indirectly exclude participation by one or more interested parties.
>
>How about "Provide appropriate _open_ fora for discussion and debate."
Sounds good, but we have to define "open".
>>...and more globally, provide a consensus mechanism, period. The WGs
>>need a method for consensus determination.
>
>That will be one of the hardest issues, I agree. The current ICANN bylaws
>provide a way for determining whether the Names Council believes that
>consensus exists, but IMO, it's a rather crude mechanism based on a NC
>vote. (Though it has the advantage of making sure that work is completed
>and moved forward.) While I think there must be a better way, I'm not
>sure what it is.
>
>I think it would be nice though for the Working Group itself to report to
>the Names Council as to whether the WG believes that the elusive thing
>called "consensus" exists. Perhaps this group can discern a better way to
>allow that to happen.
That's an interesting idea. Mechanisms, anyone?
>
>Also, I'm not sure I agree that "provisional" recognition is different
>than "official" recognition. Isn't the "provisional" recognition
>"official," as it came from the ICANN Board?
"provisional" is a distinction made by ICANN , and there is
a specific time set for official recognition: The 1999 ICANN BoD
meeting. I believe that if the distinction did not exist, it would
not have been made.
From May 27, 1999 resolutions of ICANN:
Resolution on DNSO Constituencies
The Board discussed the applications received to date from groups
desiring to form Constituencies of the Domain Names Supporting
Organization. After consideration, the Board unanimously adopted the
following resolutions.
RESOLVED, that the following Constituencies (as defined in Article
VI-B of the Bylaws) are provisionally recognized until the annual
meeting of the Board in 1999, to operate in accordance with the
proposals received by the Corporation and ordered attached to these
minutes:
ccTLD registries
Commercial and business entities
gTLD registries
Intellectual property
ISPs and connectivity providers
Registrars
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President of the Corporation is directed to
work with the Constituencies to amend their proposals to address
deficiencies noted by the Board, which amended proposals must include
a commitment of the submitting Constituency to hold a new election of
Names Council representatives promptly following the approval by the
Board of such amended proposal.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that, when such proposals are so amended, the Board
should examine such proposals to determine whether the deficiencies
have been satisfactorily addressed and whether to extend the
recognition today made.
>
>I do, however, agree that individuals need to be recognized within the
>current structure. (While my personal preference would have been for
>individuals to participate in all constituencies, I appear to have lost
>that argument, so as a distant second choice, I support the efforts of
>the IDNO as a segregated forum for individuals). But since the current
>model allows anyone to participate in Working Groups, I'm not sure that
>the exclusion of certain groups from the constituency process should
>affect the work of these groups. (It's effect on the ability of the Names
>Council to vote on and forward proposals, however, is another story.)
Again, the July 26 NC teleconference would seem to indicate a closing of
the WGs to anyone and everyone. Furthermore, the "actual" WG would be
a private list of a hand-picked few chosen by the chair (who, remember,
is in turn hand-picked by the NC).
The IETF procedures allow for similar types of shenanigans.
--
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org