[wg-d] "Interim Measures"

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

>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.

We have until next Wednesday to make a report to the NC on "interim 
solutions" as discussed in the resolution above. I see several options 
based on my own thoughts and some of the posts to date. There may be 
other options. These are in no particular order. 

   (i)  Report that WG-C should continue its work, that the issues 
        with which it has been presented are very contentious, and
        that any lack of movement is not surprising. Suggest that the
        members of WG-C break into smaller groups with members who
        have alligned positions and have each of the groups publish a 
        report to the GA for discussion and debate. 

  (ii)  Report that WG-C should continue its work, that the issues 
        with which it has been presented are very contentious, and
        that any lack of movement is not surprising. Suggest that the
        leaders from various "factions" meet in real time, via 
        telephone or the net, to seek a compromise. Have any compromise
        reported to the Working Group and GA to see if it has wider
        approval.

 (iii)  Report that WG-C should continue its work, that the issues 
        with which it has been presented are very contentious, and
        that any lack of movement is not surprising. Suggest that the
        members of WG-C be given more time to find their way on their
        own.

  (iv)  Report that the process issues themselves are very difficult 
        to resolve and suggest that WG-C, as well as all other WGs, 
        cease work until WG-D can submit its final proposal.

Whatever we do, I personally counsel against any "interim measure" that 
would disband WG-C and rebuild it without some of its current members 
(for example, recast it as a "Balanced Working Group"). We would bring 
charges that the DNSO was trying to find consensus by excluding voices, 
which, at the end of the day, is counterproductive.

     -- Bret