Re: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

"2)  Seek to encourage participation by all interested parties by seeking
to limit the list members' posts per day (say, to two).  This could have two
beneficial effects.  First, it would cut down on the volume, and allow
people to participate in WG-C without having it take over their lives.
Second, list members faced with this limitation might take care to make
their two posts per day count - leaving unimportant or tangential things
unsaid, and concentrating on making substantive comments on the main
issues before the group. **"

I still maintain that this would be better served through strong moderation
than through limiting posts. Speaking personally, I know for a fact that I
have flown off the handle and posted inappropriately to the list. However,
a) this does not constitute the majority of my activity and b) has never
been flagged as an issue by the remainder of the group. For the most part, I
like to think that I present well-thought out positions that the rest of the
group can evaluate and agree or disagree with. I submit that the WG-C
mailing list is exactly like any other volunteer, committee position - if
you didn't understand the demands that it takes on your time beforehand,
then you can expect that it will likely take up too much of your time. If
this is the case, those affected by the demands have the option of resigning
from the group, leaving the work to people that are better prepared. The
work that this group is doing is extremely important and participation must
be all or none. For those that do not wish that it takes over their lives
are welcomed as observers and have full access to the archives.

It must be said that I feel very strongly about my position in this regard.

-Ross




----- Original Message -----
From: Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
To: 'Bret A. Fausett' <baf@fausett.com>; 'Wg-d' <wg-d@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures


> Bret - thanks much - looks like it didn't make it the first time for some
> reason.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Bret
A.
> Fausett
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 11:45 PM
> To: Wg-d
> Subject: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures
>
> Not sure if this made it onto the list. Theresa sent earlier today. --
> Bret
>
> ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
> Date:        09/13  4:49 PM
> Received:    09/13  5:07 PM
> From:        Theresa Swinehart, Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
> CC:          'Bret A. Fausett', baf@fausett.com
>
> All -
>
> Please find below the report prepared by Bret and myself regarding WG-D's
> interim measures for WG-C. This report will be forwarded to the NC by
> close
> of business Tuesday, September 14th, central European time. It will be
> discussed on the NC call on Wednesday, September 15th.
>
> Theresa
>
>
>
> To: Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
>
> From: Co-Chairs of Working Group D
>
> Re: Interim Measures
>
> Date: Thursday, September 9, 1999
>
>
> On Thursday, August 24th, 1999, the Names Council of the DNSO adopted a
> resolution requesting that Working Group D come to an interim solution for
> Working Group C. Working Group D began undertaking this request shortly
> after the resolution was passed.
>
> Background and Summary of Discussion:
>
> Discussion began with whether the NC had the authority to request WG-D to
> come to an interim solution for Working Group C. Views differed, but
> overall
> agreement was that the NC requested this, and it was within the
> responsibility of WG-D regarding process issues. Whether interim or
> permanent, process issues did fall within the scope of responsibility of
> the
> Working Group.
>
> After conclusion of this discussion, there were several lines of dialogue.
> There were two posts suggesting that WG-C should cease work until this WG
> can complete its report, and a majority of the posts suggesting that WG-C
> should continue working, though trying something new to move its work
> ahead.
> As for what the "something new" should be, a number of posts have
> suggested
> asking the members of WG-C to summarize their work into written position
> statements, both as a means to share the positions with the larger
> Internet
> community and as an exercise to focus the group's thinking.
>
> As to what should become of these statements, there seems to be some
> consensus that there will be a public comment period, and perhaps the
> opportunity to revise or compromise the statements. There has also been a
> suggestion that these position statements may actually represent the final
> work product of WG-C. It was reiterated that WG-C should not be closed
> down,
> and it was emphasized that its work should be completed. The
> Recommendations
> WG-D forwards are as an interim solution to help the process move forward.
> These recommendations include two main procedural points: 1) determining
> current situation, identifying current areas of disagreement; 2)
> encouraging
> greater participation by attempting to limit the amount of postings to the
> list-serve per day to ensure all interested parties can participate.
>
> Working Group D recommendation:
>
> Working Group D recommends that the NC ask the working group to:
>
> 1)  prepare -as the interim output of the WG- a report >with all the
> different views that have been presented in the discussions. The interim
> report, as well as the final report from a working group, should contain
> the
> following elements:
>
>
> (a) a detailed overview of the proposal;
> (b) a full analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the
> proposal;
> (c) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
> proposal;
> (d) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they
> would be be borne;
> (e) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the
> proposal
> and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities.
>
>
> >
> Such a proposal should provide for "rebuttals," so that once each group
> had
> read the others' reports, they could have time to draft a short reply. It
> might then be helpful to publish the report for a public comment. You
> might
> even allow each group to revise (hopefully, compromise) their reports
> prior
> to submitting a final output of the WG to the NC.
>
> 2)  Seek to encourage participation by all interested parties by seeking
> to
> limit the list members' posts per day (say, to two).  This could have two
> beneficial effects.  First, it would cut down on the volume, and allow
> people to participate in WG-C without having it take over their lives.
> Second, list members faced with this limitation might take care to make
> their two posts per day count - leaving unimportant or tangential things
> unsaid, and concentrating on making substantive comments on the main
> issues
> before the group. **
>
> Conclusion:
> Working Group D recommends that WG-C makes sure that all interested
> parties
> really taking part.  Either the co-chairs of the WG need to make sure to
> have input from all, or that the representatives involved are working with
> their constituencies. IN order to be sure not to discourage participation,
> the environment must encourage participation. Mechanisms of controling
> amount of traffic on WG-C list-serve, and providing interim report on
> positions and differing views will allow the WG-to determine where they
> may
> be close to compromise, and where they may not.
>
> Working Group D believes that WG-C can reach possible compromise. ** WG-C,
> as currently constituted, with its current leadership, is in a position to
> find compromise, consensus solutions to at least part of the problem if
> left
> to find its own way.
> The recommendations by WG-D are intended to move this process forward, and
> ensure ability for all interested parties to participate.
>
>
>
> Co-Chairs of Working Group D
> Bret Fausset and Theresa Swinehart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------