[wg-d] Balanced Working Groups

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

>Motion 1 as amended: The NC instructs WG-D to include, as one of the 
>bodies that may be delegated to work on a specific issue, balanced 
>working groups according to the following procedure. Balanced working 
>groups will include an equal number of seats for each constituency; each 
>constituency can use or leave vacant its seats according to interest. 
>Working groups will also include some number (to be decided by NC) of 
>representatives of the general assembly plus experts invited by the 
>chairs of the working group.

This body has been asked by the Names Council to consider the adoption of 
"balanced" working groups for some tasks in the DNSO. 

Perhaps we can discuss:

(1) what is the purpose of a "balanced" WG, as opposed to a group anyone 
could join that might not have the same proportional representation as 
the Names Council? Or rather, what is the problem that "balanced" working 
groups is proposed to solve and is this the right solution?

(2) when would "balanced" working groups be preferred to "open" working 
groups? Always? Never? In the most contentious cases? 

I had also perceived some "consensus" in the earlier discussions in this 
group that open working groups (the current model) were preferable to 
other models. Was I correct? 

       -- Bret