[wg-d] Real Time Meeting and New Agenda Items

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

Six members of Working Group D met in Los Angeles, California on November 2,
1999 in conjunction with the first annual meeting of ICANN. While the group
was small, we were able to discuss a couple of the key issues necessary to
complete our work.

 * What level of formalism should a WG follow?

We began by focusing on the latest draft (http:), and specifically on the
comments received prior to the LA meeting about the high level of detail
involved in making motions, calling for votes, etc. We generally agreed that
although the group had wanted an online equivalent of Roberts' Rules of
Order, sections 4.1 through 4.5 of the current draft was not something that
we would like to see adopted.

Going back to why we felt the need for defined rules of process in the first
place, most of us agreed that the problem was with the hypothetical runaway
Chair, who ignored viewpoints or labeled as "consensus" a view that the
Chair favored but which was not truly a consensus position.

We agreed that a good WG Chair makes all the difference, and with a fair,
trusted Chair, you would not need an online version of Roberts' Rules of
Order. John Klensin suggested that we focus only on the problem of the
unfair Chair and create a rule to "kill the Chair" and elect a new one if
the group encountered problems.

We agreed that this made sense and that we would examine objective means of
recalling a Chair and empanelling a new one as a substitute for the defined
rules for motions and voting, etc. that are currently in the draft.

What do you think? 

 * What happens if a WG cannot reach a consensus position?

We discussed the very real problem of what happens if a Working Group could
not reach consensus on any or all of its work. Should the NC be able to pick
from six or seven different position papers, none of which have garnered the
position of a consensus choice, or should the groups be forced to come
together prior to submitting their proposals?

On this issue, the experience of Karl Auerbach and John Klensin in the IETF
was insightful. As I understand it, in the IETF, a WG will report only on
those matters on which it has reached consensus, and if there are issues
that still need to be solved, a new working group will be chartered to
address them. The consensus items from the first WG would be frozen (a "soft
freeze," as John Klensin described it) and the second WG would begin looking
at the remaining areas of disagreement. Through this iterative process, a
true consensus position should emerge.

What do people think about such a process?

 * Role of the General Assembly (NEW!)

Finally, at the General Assembly meeting in Los Angeles, Karl Auerbach made
a motion that the GA assembly be given the power to (i) create its own
Working Groups, (ii) propose new policies for adoption by ICANN, and (iii)
approve or disapprove the work product of DNSO working groups. (Someone
please correct me if I've misstated this or omitted any portion of it.)

Since the WG-D draft already allowed for some versions of (i) and (ii), and
because time for considering the motion was short, this issue was referred
to this Working Group for further consideration. Since we've already dealt
with some of these issues, the real issue, as I see it, is:

"Should the General Assembly have a formal role, separate from the open
public comment period, in approving or disapproving the work of a Working
Group?"

Karl or anyone else can elaborate on this.

  

          -- Bret