[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-d] Draft Version 3



Yes, that does it, thanks!

Bill

At 12:29 PM 9/14/99 -0700, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>How's this?  (Note change to subsection (b))  Bill, does the inclusion of 
>this sentence and the statement that a "clear statement" is required 
>capture your concern?
> 
>    -- Bret
>
>
>>-----------------------------------------------<
>
>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 
>group's thinking.
>
>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 clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying 
>rationale;
>
> (c)	an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the 
>proposal; 
>
> (d)	the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the 
>proposal; 
>
> (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 
>communities.
>
>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 
>the group. 
>
>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.
>
>>      Conclusion: 
>
>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
>