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

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

I believe that having a method to remove the chair is an excellent idea.  It
will allow us to have more powerful chairs, which in turn will help a group
function by having an arbitrator and decision-maker, as well as someone who
will have to take responsibility for the group's progress.  I would
recommend that it not be too difficult to remove a chair; the level of
consensus required (or votes, or whatever) should be no higher than will be
needed to reach a decision to forward a recommendation.

I am very much against the idea of allowing the NC to pick between position
papers - this will lead to bad decisions.  An inability to reach a decision
means that the question has to be atomized, recast, looked at differently.
There is no logical reason why the NC should be able to pick and choose
between positions.  The point of a WG is to forge a consensus - or not.

Finally, while I agree with Karl's position, especially given our pointless
and scandal-covered NC, I don't see that the question of whether the GA has
power to charter WGs falls within the purview of WG-D.  Consideration of
this question will likely enmesh WG-D in a messy brawl without the
possibility of a constructive outcome.

Antony

+-----Original Message-----
+From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Bret
+A. Fausett
+Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:23 PM
+To: wg-d@dnso.org
+Subject: [wg-d] Real Time Meeting and New Agenda Items
+
+
+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
+
+