[council] FW: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

Can others please shed light on the debate that has been brewing in WGC.
Again, I would like to make it PERFECTLY clear that I have never said to
stop or abandon WGC.  I see no problem for WGC to continue its online
discussion, and to document that in some form or another.  What I
believe is in direct conflict with the motion is any voting or drawing
of conclusions from this working group at this time.  I do not see how
any such votes or conclusions can be accepted by the Names Council in
light of our motion.  The reason we gave "poor" WGD such a short time to
draft interim measures was to minimize any disruption in WGC. 

Feedback? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline 
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:57 PM
To: 'Jonathan Weinberg'
Cc: 'wg-c@dnso.org'; 'javier@auj.es'
Subject: RE: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote


I made absolutely no suggestion or request that WG C be abolished, so
you are correct that there is some confusion here.  

I also wish to clarify my comment about taking no further action,
including voting.  I did not mean to suggest that the discussion on the
listserve should be stopped or postponed (as if that was really
possible!). And while I see no problem documenting the PROCESS and
STATEMENTS to date (whether in the form a memo or otherwise), the Names
Council specifically found that the STRUCTURE and the COMPOSITION of WG
C violates ICANN bylaws.  Therefore, I believe that continuing to "try
and find such consensus as we can find,wherever we can find it" from a
group (which includes me) to which the Names Council has objected makes
no sense.  Trying to draw conclusions from votes submitted by such a
group would likewise appear meaningless.  How can you say "[t]here would
be nothing wrong, further, with producing a report that says we have
consensus on X issues, and are presenting the competing arguments on Y"
when the Names Council has objected to the underlying process by which
such a report would be produced?

Javier, what are your thoughts?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:08 PM
To: Chicoine, Caroline
Cc: 'javier@aui.es'; 'wg-c@dnso.org'
Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote


	I think there's some confusion here.  The Names Council has
decided that we're not doing our job, and has asked Working Group D to
come up with ways in which Javier and I might adjust our structure.  The
NC has made absolutely no suggestion, though, that we be abolished.
Nor,
for that matter, does *anyone* in Working Group D seem to think that, or
that our membership should be restricted.  To the extent that WG-D comes
up with proposals that will allow us more efficiently to do our job,
that's a good thing -- in any event, we're still in business.[*]

	I think Javier's suggestion that we work on an options memo is a
good one.  I've suggested before, as have others, that if we can't reach
consensus then such a memo will be the best we can do.  As Siegfried has
urged, such a memo should not only list the different possible courses
of
action, but also explain the arguments set forward in favor of each.

	I also think, though, that while we are proceeding with that
process we should continue to try and find such consensus as we can
find,
wherever we can find it.  (There would be nothing wrong, further, with
producing a report that says we have consensus on X issues, and are
presenting the competing arguments on Y.)  I'll post a separate note,
later today, working towards that goal on "how many, how fast."  As for
the straw poll votes, they are not an attempt to count heads and thereby
determine the position of the group, on a "majority wins" basis.  Their
results have no official status.  Rather, they're a tool we can use to
try
to figure out where we may be able to find consensus.  There's no reason
not to continue doing that.  Indeed, I think it would be an abdication
of
our duty if we were to sit back and twiddle our thumbs for two weeks,
hoping for WG-D to come up with a magic bullet, rather than continuing
to
work.

--------------

[*] It would be folly, further, for the NC to abolish this WG or to try
to
replace it with some hand-picked committee.  We've had a hard time
getting
results because we're charged with making proposals regarding a really
hard set of issues, on which people tend to strongly disagree; the only
way to reach consensus quickly on these issues is to exclude one or more
of the contending camps from the debate.  As ICANN and the DNSO strive
to
prove their legitimacy, in the face of attacks from Herndon and Capitol
Hill, the *last* thing it would make sense to do would be to try to 
squelch raucous debate or inconvenient views.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Chicoine, Caroline wrote:

> Javier, if I recall correctly, the NC passed  the following motion in
> Santiago:
> 
> "NC declares that the current structure and composition of WGC is
> contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2b of ICANN bylaws in the sense that
> it's not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO.  In
> this regard, the NC requires WGD within two weeks to povide the NC
with
> interim measures to allow WGC chairs to restructure the working group
in
> a way that allows it to perform its functions."
> 
> Given this mandate, I believe that no further "voting" can take place,
> since the results will be the result of a WG which has been found not
to
> be in compliance with ICANN bylaws.  As a result, I am requesting that
> any further action, including "voting", be put on hold until the
interim
> measures are developed.  IMHU, we all could use a two week break to
step
> back, cool off and reflect on the issues at hand.
> 
> Please advise.
> 
> 
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com