Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

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

Mark -- Thanks for the quick response! A few comments...

Mark C. Langston wrote:
>>Organization
>>
>>o  	Provide for the ability of the Names Council to propose 
>>   	a Working Group and fill that Working Group with persons 
>>   	interested in and capable of accomplishing the proposed work;
>
>Are you suggesting here that the NC should be allowed not only to
>create WGs, but to fill them with people they pick, and not allow
>outside participation?

That's one option. My articulation of the issue, however, was not meant 
to suggest any particular resolution, but only to state that the 
population of the work group will be an issue for our discussion. The 
Names Council members, as representatives of the constituencies, should 
be in a position to nominate persons from their constituencies to 
populate the Working Groups. They should, at a minimum I think, be able 
place persons from their constituency on a Working Group.

FWIW, I think the current model works quite well:  anyone who wants to 
participate can participate (subject to yet-to-be-defined rules of civil 
discourse).

>I'll add one here:
>
>o      Allow the WG to elect its own chair or chairs, as opposed
>       to having the NC appoint one.  If necessary, a NC liason may
>       be appointed, but said liason will not serve in any chair
>       capacity.

I like the idea of having Names Council members participate in the 
activities of the Working Group. At a minimum, it provides an open 
dialogue between the WG and the NC. 

Your suggestion though that the WG select its own chair is a good one. I 
actually prefer the term "moderator" to "chair," as I think it better 
describes the work to be done. I also wonder whether, given the other 
things they are tasked with doing, Names Council members actually have 
the time needed to devote to the Working Groups, especially to chair 
them. Someone from the Names Council might be able to address that.

>>The Work
>>
>>o   Provide appropriate fora for discussion and debate;
>
>...inasmuch as said fora are inclusive and do not serve to directly
>or indirectly exclude participation by one or more interested parties.

How about "Provide appropriate _open_ fora for discussion and debate."

>>o   Provide leadership to moderate and steer the debate;
>
>Again, I'll have to disagree here.  The WG should choose its
>own leadership.

What I meant to say was that the DNSO should have a procedure that allows 
the Working Group members to moderate and steer the debate within the GA. 
It was not meant to suggest that the NC do this within the WG. Perhaps I 
could have been clearer.

>>o	  Provide a mechanism to draft any recommendations or reports;
>>
>...isn't this one of the things we're supposed to be creating?

Exactly, I was simply trying to create a check list of things to be done.

>>Reports
>>
>>o	  Provide a mechanism for determining whether "consensus" exists
>>    on a proposed report, and if not, ensuring that all serious 
>>    points of view are included in the final report;
>
>...and more globally, provide a consensus mechanism, period.  The WGs
>need a method for consensus determination.

That will be one of the hardest issues, I agree. The current ICANN bylaws 
provide a way for determining whether the Names Council believes that 
consensus exists, but IMO, it's a rather crude mechanism based on a NC 
vote. (Though it has the advantage of making sure that work is completed 
and moved forward.) While I think there must be a better way, I'm not 
sure what it is. 

I think it would be nice though for the Working Group itself to report to 
the Names Council as to whether the WG believes that the elusive thing 
called "consensus" exists. Perhaps this group can discern a better way to 
allow that to happen.

>I'll also add the need to seriously consider how WGs are formed.
>Right now, no WG within the DNSO is valid, as it fails to meet the
>by-laws, which require one elected representative from each officially
>recognized constituency.  First, because there are no elected reps in
>the WGs, and second, because there are no officailly recognized
>constituencies as of this date.  Every constituency that currently
>exists has only been provisionally recognized, and will not be
>officially recognized until the 1999 ICANN BoD meeting.
>
>Ignoring that for the moment, there's a serious issue of over and
>under-representation within WGs.  Should WGs have mandatory
>participation, as the ICANN bylaws suggest?  Should they be open to
>everyone?  What about the GA?  What about constituencies that are
>currently petitioning the ICANN BoD for official recognition?
>
>All of these speak to the larger issue of legitimacy, and need to
>be addressed.  The failure to have issues like this resolved before
>work begins leads to arguments like those found in WG-C.

I understand and appreciate these concerns. I think the ICANN bylaw 
requiring someone from each constituency to participate was to ensure 
*minimal* representation for any recognized constituency. So if the model 
is that anyone can participate (which I think is preferable), then there 
is no need to ensure minimal representation, and that Bylaw provision 
should be changed.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that "provisional" recognition is different 
than "official" recognition. Isn't the "provisional" recognition 
"official," as it came from the ICANN Board?  

I do, however, agree that individuals need to be recognized within the 
current structure. (While my personal preference would have been for 
individuals to participate in all constituencies, I appear to have lost 
that argument, so as a distant second choice, I support the efforts of 
the IDNO as a segregated forum for individuals). But since the current 
model allows anyone to participate in Working Groups, I'm not sure that 
the exclusion of certain groups from the constituency process should 
affect the work of these groups. (It's effect on the ability of the Names 
Council to vote on and forward proposals, however, is another story.)

        -- Bret