Re: [ga] Working Groups

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:02:03 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > We're talking a bit at cross purposes here. Let me try to clarify.
>
> Thank you, Sandy, I understand you now.
>
> > What I'm trying to do is advocate a model more like (my understanding of)
> > the way the IETF does things rather than the current way ICANN does them.
>
> Agreed.  I prefer that model too.  That's the direction I have been trying to
> move towards but within a framework acceptable to the GA and the NC.

  The problem that arises here is that the IETF model, a good one in most
instances, does not fit within the the NC and/or the GA( all members included).
I would also prefer this method but clearly recognize that this method
does not always work for such a WG to be formed.  This is why I
suggested BTW that a request be posted to the NC, Secretariat,
and copied to the GA members for the formation of the proposed
Delete WG.  In that request would be a ML for the WG to do its
work and have it open to any and all GA or other interested parties
as put forth in the MoU and WHite paper.  Should the NC and
secretariat refuse or ignore this request, than and only than should
the GA members seek a different solution and self form their
own WG outside of the DNSO including the WG ML.

>
>
> -snip -
>
> We can more-or-less set up what we want within the GA and that's what I have
> been trying to do.  Perhaps the NC could be convinced iff the GA had strong
> consensus.

  This is where your poll come into play.  Once or if enough GA members
participate in the poll the results are directed to the NC than you have
the impetus for the WG with it's ML within the GA and for the GA
members or other interested parties.

>
>
> But the ICANN level (including other SOs) is more intractable.  Hence a number
> of participants have tried to address the ICANN structure.

  Yes and this is the biggest problem.  The structure of the DNSO and other
SO's is where the procedural problems begin.

>
>
> > Restrict the Names Council and ICANN Board from rewriting WG proposals.
>
> That's perhaps possible in the light of your comments below.

  Yes, here Sandy makes a very good point.  This perhaps cannot be
prevented but can be as was done with WG-C which I believe Sandy
is referring to, refuted accurately and documented.

>
>
> > They can reject a proposal, or send it back to the WG for a rewrite, but
> > not rewrite it themselves. On overall policy matters, they might generate
> > pronouncements like the IESG/IAB RFC 1984. However, the basic model is
> > that decisions are made by Working Groups.
>
> Perhaps we should not use the word "decisions" in this context, as it will
> imply that ICANN is ceding control.  What does the IETF call them, RFCs or
> Drafts?

  Drafts.

>
>
> What about "determinations" or something similar?
>
> > Scrap the idea that the Names Council should ever appoint a closed Task
> > Force rather than setting up an open Working Group to deal with a problem.
>
> Absolutely agree.  It must be open.
>
> > Scrap the notion of constituencies. Let them join the Working Groups.
>
> Yes, but that's where the power lies and it's hard to persuade them to
> voluntarily relinquish their control over the NC.

  The NC is supposed to be a reflection of the constituencies including
the GA.  Unfortunately this is not really the case presently.

>  As a compromise we could
> leave the constituencies and allow them to participate in the Working Groups.
> Eventually there would be a shift in the balance of power.

  Sounds good, but it will never fly at this juncture.  Too much time has
passed now...

>
>
> So the real question is (a) what level (ICANN, SO or GA) and (b) how do we
> generate consensus to achieve your proposal.
>
> My way was to implement Working Groups within the GA itself but I would prefer
> to move up a level.  The present "closed" NC Task Forces should not be
> supported, imo.

 Most here in the GA do not support closed TF's.

>
>
> In fact, I think we are wrong to participate in voting a representative.
> That's just the NC throwing us some scraps to keep us happy.

  This notion is also wrong headed.  I says that you are a rogue individual.
Rather it is better to strictly follow the process so as to show how bad
it really is.

>
>
> I also think that the methodology to determine "terms of reference" needs to
> be very carefully considered as this happens to be a key pressure point.  The
> current NC Task Forces have had their agenda set by Phillip Sheppard (either
> in his role as Chair of the Names Council or in his role on the Task Force
> itself).
>
> Thanks for the clarification :-)
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html