Re: [wg-d] Names Council Motions

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

To say that a WG never reports in the face of dissent is to give a
'heckler's veto'.  But to say that a WG always reports in the face of
dissent is to create an 'activist's railroad'.  To say 'it depends' risks
muddle, but that may still be the best we can do.

So we are back at metrics.  And to know which metrics to think of, we need
to know more than we know about the place of Working Groups in the food
chain.  

(I : technocrat model) Is it about drafting options?  In that case, the
job is to make the best statement it can for each coherent view with
adherents, and let some later, more political, body thrash them out.

(II: microcosm model) Is it about weighing the intellectual/numerical
force for a position?  Then votes are OK, and at some point someone
(chairs jointly, n% of members, whatever) calls the question and they vote
and then write dissents

(III: consensus building model)  Is it about attempting to build a
consensus? Then be patient and wait for consensus.

By the way, I missed that part of the video - an someone explain to me
what the rush is?  I thought big decisions were supposed to wait for the
elected ICANN board?


On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Bret A. Fausett wrote:

> At its meeting in Santiago, the Names Council apparently moved that this 
> Working Group consider certain issues as it prepares its final report. 
> The text of the motions are quoted below.
> 
> Before people react strongly to (a) the implication that the Names 
> Council is trying to do our work for us, or (b) the fact that the Names 
> Council has declared WG C unworkable, let me provide some background that 
> may allow us to continue our work here and also, I hope, address the 
> perceived problems raised by the Names Council.
> 
> I understand (but Theresa should be able to add more information) that 
> the motions below arose because of perceived problems in the operation of 
> Working Group C (which focuses on the addition of new gTLDs). Whether the 
> problems are real or not, I cannot say. But for purposes of our work 
> here, let's suppose that 
> 
>    (a) a Working Group is presented with a particularly contentious issue;
>    (b) a Working Group is divided into two, and possibly more, equal 
> factions;
>    (c) some parties have a sizeable business interest in the outcome;
>    (d) the discussions are heated and contentious;
>    (e) some parties refuse to compromise;
>    (f) an obvious compromise or consensus position has not emerged in 
> spite of weeks
>        (some would say years) of discussion; and
>    (g) some faction advocates no action at all.
> 
> What do you do? 
> 

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->   It's hot and humid here.   <--