[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Draft Version 2
I think the requirement for a detailed overview is very important.
At 02:10 PM 9/14/99 -0400, Jon Weinberg wrote:
I believe Kent's intention, in suggesting an abstract, was that the <<<<
abstract *replace* the detailed overview, rather than being added to
it. (That's at least what I understood him to mean, and it seems a more
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii;
[<msg00426.html>Date Prev][Date Next][<msg00425.html>Thread Prev][Thread Next][<maillist.html#00427>Date Index][<threads.html#00427>Thread Index]
[wg-d] Draft Version 2
* To: "Theresa Swinehart" <<mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>, "'Wg-d'" <<mailto:email@example.com>firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Subject: [wg-d] Draft Version 2
* From: "Bret A. Fausett" <<mailto:email@example.com>firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Date: Tue, 14 Sep 99 10:38:04 -0700
* Sender: <mailto:email@example.com>firstname.lastname@example.org
Significant changes include: (a) modification of position statement items
to reflect that might be helpful, but not mandatory; (b) alteration of
"rebuttal" language to relect that there should be a more constructive
period of "modification" and "compromise;" and (c) addition of the idea
of a "moderated" list, though with a caveat that either a moderated list
or a post limited list will require an additional time commitment from
To: Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
From: Co-Chairs of Working Group D
Re: Interim Measures
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999
On Thursday, August 24th, 1999, the Names Council of the DNSO adopted a
resolution requesting that Working Group D come to an interim solution
for Working Group C. Working Group D began undertaking this request
shortly after the resolution was passed.
> Background and Summary of Discussion:
Discussion began with whether the NC had the authority to request WG-D to
come to an interim solution for Working Group C. Views differed, but
overall agreement was that the NC requested this, and it was within the
responsibility of WG-D regarding process issues. Whether interim or
permanent, process issues did fall within the scope of responsibility of
the Working Group.
After conclusion of this discussion, there were several lines of
dialogue. There were two posts suggesting that WG-C should cease work
until WG-D can complete its report, but a majority of the posts suggested
that WG-C should continue working, though trying something new to move
its work ahead. As for what the "something new" should be, a number of
posts have suggested asking the members of WG-C to summarize their work
into written position statements, both as a means to share the positions
with the larger Internet community and as an exercise to focus the
As to what should become of these statements, there seems to be some
consensus that there will be a public comment period, and perhaps the
opportunity to revise or compromise the statements. There has also been a
suggestion that these position statements may actually represent the
final work product of WG-C. It was reiterated that WG-C should not be
closed down, and it was emphasized that its work should be completed.
The Recommendations WG-D forwards are as an interim solution to help the
process move forward. These recommendations include two main procedural
points: 1) determining the current situation and identifying current
areas of disagreement; and 2) encouraging greater participation by
attempting to limit the amount of postings to the list-serve per day to
ensure all interested parties can participate.
> Working Group D recommendation:
Working Group D recommends that the NC ask the working group to:
1) prepare -as the interim output of the WG- a report with all the
different views that have been presented in the discussions. In preparing
a position statement, WG-D believes that the following elements might be
helpful in allowing members of a WG, members of the GA, and the general
public to assess the viability of a given position:
(a) an abstract of the proposal, providing a summary of the group's
position and recommendations;
(b) a detailed overview of the proposal;
(c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the
(d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
(e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how
they would be be borne;
(f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the
proposal and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder
Groups drafting "position statements" should be free, however, to publish
statements in whatever form they see fit.
WG-D encourages WG-C to allow groups submitting interim "position
statements" to revise and/or compromise them after each group has read
the others' reports.
WG-D also encourages WG-C to publish the position statements for a period
of public comment, specifically seeking comments not only on the
substance of the positions but also on the "impact" issues identified in
(c) and (e) above.
WG-D believes that these steps will serve to clarify each group's
respective position, highlight areas of agreement and disagreement,
uncover areas of technical or economic impracticality, and discern the
public support for the various positions.
After these steps are taken, WG-D should have completed its final report
on what a WG Report and Recommendation should look like. The members of
WG-D expect that the work detailed above will be incorporated, in some
form, into the WG's final Report and Recommendation.
2) Seek to encourage participation by all interested parties by either
moving to a moderated list and/or seeking to limit the list members'
posts per day (say, to two). This could have two beneficial effects.
First, it would cut down on the volume, and allow people to participate
in WG-C without having it take over their lives. Second, list members
faced with this limitation might take care to make their two posts per
day count - leaving unimportant or tangential things unsaid, and
concentrating on making substantive comments on the main issues before
Such a moderated or post limited list, however, would require an
additional, perhaps significant, daily time commitment from either the
current Chairs or a new list moderator. The leadership of WG-C should
consider this aspect before deciding whether to adopt it.
Working Group D recommends that WG-C makes sure that all interested
parties really taking part. Either the co-chairs of the WG need to make
sure to have input from all, or that the representatives involved are
working with their constituencies. In order to be sure not to discourage
participation, the environment must encourage meaningful participation.
Mechanisms of controling amount of traffic on WG-C list, and providing
interim report on positions and differing views will allow the WG-to
determine where they may be close to compromise, and where they may not.
Working Group D believes that WG-C can reach possible compromise.
WG-C, as currently constituted, with its current leadership, is in a
position to find compromise, consensus solutions to at least part of the
problem if left to find its own way. The recommendations by WG-D are
intended to move this process forward, and ensure ability for all
interested parties to participate.
Co-Chairs of Working Group D Bret Fausett and Theresa Swinehart
* Prev by Date: <msg00426.html>Re: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures
* Prev by thread: <msg00425.html>Re: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures