Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 3 September 1999, Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com> wrote:


>I'd suggest having (v),  but include that a representative from the
>different views be chosen, that the representatives get together and try to
>find a solution for one document, or to at least narrow down the
>differences. The documentation will show who the views were reached,
>differing views, and also where there were areas there could be compromises.
>However, I do believe that the differing views should, in a much smaller
>group, try to see if they can't come together on some points, which they
>then give to the group for comment/input.


Smaller than what?  Sure, there are 60+ people who are members of WG-D,
but the majority of the conversation has been among ten or fewer 
participants.  

When there are only this many people willing to discuss matters in the
first place, there could only be a few reasons why you'd want a select
few to continue:

1)  There are people who refuse to participate in an open public forum,
    who want to influence the outcome

2)  There are people who currently participate whom you'd like excluded
    from influencing the outcome

3)  There are viewpoints not currently represented in the open public
    forum that you'd like to see as part of the outcome

4)  There are viewpoints currently represented in the open public forum
    you'd rather not see as part of the outcome

If no progress is being made in an active group of 10, it's folly to think
that by halving or even quartering that number you'd end up with a product
everyone would agree upon.

I personally think that WG-C should be disbanded, with no document 
produced at all, if some product cannot be achieved collaboratively.  To
present a laundry list of options to the NC is to invite them to do whatever
they want to do.  They are NOT seated to make those calls.  They are there
to ensure their constituencies are represented in the process.  Unless
a majority of those representatives speak for constituencies not currently
members of WG-C, or who were not allowed to participate in WG-C, they
cannot make that decision.  If they are indeed representatives, there should
be no way the NC can decide these issues when the full body cannot.

Once WG-D has finished its work, WG-C can be reformed under WG-D's output.

I know people want to get something implemented from WG-C, and that
people are losing money because of the stall.  Guess what?  I.  Don't.  Care.

This process isn't about financial gain or loss.  It's about doing what's
right for the Net, and what's right for *everyone* who uses the Net.
Any time you allow money to color your judgment in these proceedings,
you're betraying everything for which ICANN purports to stand.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org