Re: [wg-d] Overview

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

Let me add to the overview from Friday's post that I also added the work 
we did to assist WG-C to the Draft I circulated. What we have not finally
resolved is what happens if the position statement and public comment
process does not move the parties closer together? Assume for purposes of
addressing this question that there is no "consensus" and that the views
really are split relatively equally among stakeholders.

Do we

 (1) send the separate statements to the NC
     as the work of the group, even though
     we lack consensus?

        or

 (2) report to the NC that the WG cannot
     reach agreement?

The problem with option (1) is that, as long as it remains a possibility,
there is no incentive to compromise. Entrenched parties can move on to the
NC and see if they can get a better result there. And, if the NC is
supposed to pass only those policy recommendations on which there is
consensus, what is the point of sending it a report that, on its face,
acknowledges a lack of consensus?

The problem with option (2) is that it allows entrenched parties who might
profit from inaction to use delay as a strategy.

Perhaps there is a (3) that we haven't raised. I know we've talked about
this issue before, but IMO, we haven't reached agreement. What are people
thinking?

Also, my reading of the IETF procedures which we've used as a model for
some of these processes is that a failed WG would have to petition to the
NC for rechartering. Anyone have experience there?

         -- Bret