Re: [wg-d] A sort of summary

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Excellent job.  I endorse it heartily.

On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 03:08:17AM -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> Theresa has asked for a summary.  I'm not the one to provide it, but I will
> try to give a sense of what's happened so far, since I've just plowed
> through all the messages one by one since I joined.
> 
> First, we seem to have a split between those who want to follow a modified
> IETF process (led by Kent, who produced a long exegesis of the form), and
> those who are interested in a modified Roberts Rules, led by Karl very
> passionately.

It should be noted that there is a great deal more to this than the 
parliamentary procedure part.  There is also, for example, the 
various roles of the NC and the WGs, the entity I called the "NC 
Liason", and so on.


> My take: there is a big concern with abuse - from one side
> concern that the powerful will abuse any lack of rigorous structure, and
> from the other side, concern that the vast numbers of uninformed adherents
> to various causes will skew votes away from rational decisions.

Also there is a concern about infinite delay.

> Fundamentally, then, trust is the problem.  Any system we use must address
> this issue head on or it will fail.
> 
> Second, we don't seem to agree yet on the scope of the charter of this
> group, and we don't even agree on what a working group is.  Some definitions
> might be helpful to constrain and channel the debate.  Surely the co-chairs
> should handle this.  (For instance, Javier thinks that a WG is a drafting
> committee; Karl thinks that this group should decide where its
> recommendations should go - GA instead of NC - and also wants to establish
> procedures for how the GA should deal with WG reports after they are
> delivered.

But this really is covered in the bylaws...

> Third, that the real linchpin of any WG will be the Chair(s).  It will
> therefore be crucial to include some criteria for choosing the chair in the
> first place.  An ability to devote time ought to be avowed by the chair, and
> some qualifications on the subject matter at hand wouldn't hurt either.

Agreed...

> Fourth, there is some confusion (to my mind) about what the GA is.  It
> really isn't constituted to be able to vote, because the membership isn't
> qualified in any way (abuse problem again).  It also has not been defined at
> all except in the most general sense by the ICANN Board.  Where does it
> exist?  Is it on the GA list?  Is that the only place?  Constituencies are
> part of the GA too.  How do the constituencies and the rest of the GA meet?

The GA is described as a "forum", and all the scant material in the bylaws 
is consistent with that description.  I don't find that confusing.  
The crucial items are the relationship with the NC, and I think that 
is fairly clear, as well -- there isn't much.

> Finally there are some open questions that deserve answers/resolution:
> 
> 1. What about subdivisions of WGs?  How to deal with divide and conquer
> tactics; also time management - too many groups, too little time, favors the
> rich, the idle, and the paid.

I'm a lumper, not a splitter.

> 2. Bret Fausett - in part in response to these concerns - proposed that WG-D
> be one group, not two.  I agree.

Agreed.

> 3. The diversity question is real, despite the fact that it is politely
> ignored.  This subcommittee is overwhelmingly North American.  If we want to
> have any claim to credibility, we must get some more people from outside the
> US.   Unfortunately, this is a difficult task for those of who are in the
> US.  Nonetheless we should attempt it.

Agreed.

> 4. There will be costs, even to this group, and that is one of the things
> that this WG is charged at looking at.  No-one's shown much interest in it
> so far though.

Yes.  Time is a big cost, if nothing else.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain