Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

My proposal:  Rather than using the IETF process in which working group
output is reviewed by increasingly smaller bodies, we ought to be adopting
a process in which working group output is reviewed, re-evaluated, and
explicitly re-accepted by increasingly larger bodies.

DNSO working groups ought to have the ability to form on their own, be
chartered, or otherwise come to exist.  There ought to be no particular
barriers to working group formation.

These working groups ought to be able to come up with proposals that they
submit to the DNSO GA.  (Indeed, any individual should also be able to
submit a proposal, working groups need not have the sole perogative to
make proposals.)

The DNSO GA should have the ability to take a proposal and rewrite it
fully and adopt its own rewrite without ever sending it back to any
working group if it feels that that is the right thing to do.

And the NC, since its job is to "coordinate" ought to simply watch and do
nothing more than "coordinate".  And that means, if the GA adopts a
proposal, the NC merely "coordinates" the transfer of that proposal to the
ICANN board.


Now back to IETF processes...


> and a significant proportion of drafts go back for wg changes after iesg
> review.
 
As you say, the drafts can only be "rejected" and sent back.  

> > But the IETF has no mechanism through which the body as a whole reviews
> > the working group output and accepts/rejects/modifies it.
> 
> it is referred to as ietf last call and is a mandatory part of the formal
> process.  any person can, given issues of substance, stop a document in its
> tracks.  and it is not uncommon that this happens.

Last call is merely a statement that "unless you object the document goes
forward".

Last call is not a vehicle through which the IETF as a whole expresses
approval, only that those who have objections can make a last complaint.  

In other words, the IETF never "accepts", it only has the ability to
propose objections, which may or may not be ignorred.

There is no IETF mechanism by which a working group document is put up to
the whole body and the question asked: "Do you accept this?" or even "Do
you reject this?"

That lack of need to have an explicit broad based acceptance of a proposal
might work in technical areas, but it is a bad idea for these soft policy
issues.


> > Soft policy, as we have here, requires that working groups be merely a
> > source of formulations of ideas.  But unlike the IETF, we ought not to
> > allow the working group to be effectively the final arbiter of those
> > ideas, but rather require that those ideas be deeply reviewed and subject
> > to full acceptance by larger bodies.
> 
> i do not disagree with this, except for your (in my opinion) mis-statement
> of how the ietf works.

I don't think we are disagreeing, but simply describing the same
mechanism.  We have not disagreed that the fundamental premise of IETF
working groups is that they produce documents which are not subject to
revision or a clear acceptance by the IETF as a whole.  Rather, I think we
are both agreeing that the IETF working groups produce documents, that are
reviewed by a small body, and sometimes sent back to the WG for changes,
and that an opportunity is allowed for people to object, but that there is
no overall up/down decision (or opportunity to alter the document) by the
entire IETF community.

> > In other words, we ought to reverse the presumptions from the IETF's
> > presumption that WG output will result in a standard if not shown
> > erroneous to a presumption the WG output is merely a topic for the GA
> > consider, amend, or reject as the GA sees fit.
> 
> i am not sure i fully agree with this.  in this model, there would be no
> need for wgs, merely random collections of drafters.  i suspect a reasonable
> point lies in the middle, the wgs having a strong pen, but the nc and ga
> having strong review.

Working groups always will have a strong pen -- people who write and "do"
generally end up having a stronger ability to get their ideas down than
those who sit silently.

I do not like the word "review" as that implies simple acceptance or
rejection and sending it back to the working group.

Rather, the DNSO GA should have the ability to take a working group
proposal and rewrite it fully and adopt its own rewrite without ever
sending it back to a working group if it feels that that is the right
thing to do.

And the NC, since its job is to "coordinate" ought to simply watch and do
nothing more than "coordinate".

		--karl--