RE: [wg-d] Names Council Motions

["David Schutt" <david@speco.com>]

This is difficult to respond to.

I believe that it is unethical to manipulate the composition of a group to
obtain a preferred outcome, and am being 'instructed' to do just that.

I suppose such ill considered instructions should be ignored, but I'm not
sure if that is the best way to handle this.

David Schutt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Bret
A. Fausett
Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 11:42 AM
To: Working Group D
Subject: [wg-d] Names Council Motions


At its meeting in Santiago, the Names Council apparently moved that this
Working Group consider certain issues as it prepares its final report.
The text of the motions are quoted below.

Before people react strongly to (a) the implication that the Names
Council is trying to do our work for us, or (b) the fact that the Names
Council has declared WG C unworkable, let me provide some background that
may allow us to continue our work here and also, I hope, address the
perceived problems raised by the Names Council.

I understand (but Theresa should be able to add more information) that
the motions below arose because of perceived problems in the operation of
Working Group C (which focuses on the addition of new gTLDs). Whether the
problems are real or not, I cannot say. But for purposes of our work
here, let's suppose that

   (a) a Working Group is presented with a particularly contentious issue;
   (b) a Working Group is divided into two, and possibly more, equal
factions;
   (c) some parties have a sizeable business interest in the outcome;
   (d) the discussions are heated and contentious;
   (e) some parties refuse to compromise;
   (f) an obvious compromise or consensus position has not emerged in
spite of weeks
       (some would say years) of discussion; and
   (g) some faction advocates no action at all.

What do you do?

Personally, I would prefer not to analyze Working Group C. But the model
procedures we draft here _should_ be able to account for a hypothetical
situation as set out above.

How can a Working Group work in such an environment? Is this a problem of
size? Represention?

Is there any assurance that a new Working Group, either smaller or
differently proportioned, wouldn't reach the same impasse?

      -- Bret

(p.s. Please feel free to change the subject line, as appropriate, to
better track any new threads that come out of this discussion or that
relate to a specific motion below.)

=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=
  From: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990826.NCsantiago-agenda.html
=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=

Motions Regarding Working Group D

Motion 1 as amended: The NC instructs WG-D to include, as one of the
bodies that may be delegated to work on a specific issue, balanced
working groups according to the following procedure. Balanced working
groups will include an equal number of seats for each constituency; each
constituency can use or leave vacant its seats according to interest.
Working groups will also include some number (to be decided by NC) of
representatives of the general assembly plus experts invited by the
chairs of the working group.

Motion 2: When a working group is created by the Names Council, it shall
appoint a Supervisory Chair (member of the NC). The Supervisory Chair
shall immediately call for persons to work on the working group including
a request to each of the constituencies of the DNSO to provide members
for the working group. Simultaneously, a Supervisory Chair shall call for
nominations for the position of Working Chair of the group, who shall not
be a member of the Names Council. The Supervisory Chair shall assist the
Working Chair in achieving a working group reflecting a diversity of
opinion from all stakeholders and all regions.

Motion 3: NC declares that current structure and composition of WG-C is
contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2.b 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 WG-D within two weeks to provide the names
council with interim measures to allow the working group C chairs to
restructure the working group in a way that allows it to perform its
functions.

Motion 4: All motions should be presented seven days in advance of NC
meeting for vote at the meeting. Any newly-raised motions at the meeting
will be voted upon online or in teleconference seven days or more after
the meeting. [Agenda items should be treated one week in advance except
if they are urgent.]

=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=
=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=