Re: [wg-d] Real Time Meeting and New Agenda Items

[Eva Frölich <eva@nic-se.se>]

Unfortunately I did´nt have the possibility to participate in the physical 
meeting in LA - I was cought up with another meeting ....

I though agree that there must be some kind of mechanism to recall and 
replace a chairman if he/she is not doing a proper job. I though think we 
need to thing carefully about the role of a chairman in order to avoid 
reelctions of chairmen instead of gettign work done. Ie the role of the 
chairman has to be defined in one way or another.


Normally if a WG can´t reach consensus the work is not finalised. If the 
solution is to create a new WG for the outstanding items or if the same WG 
should continue, that´s more or less equal to me. The NC should _not_  pick 
one of several proposals themselves. There role must be to force the work 
to be done.

The quetion about the the GA? Well, I think that we first of all has to 
define what the GA is. While that definition is made then the question 
about the GA creating their own WG or not will be anwered bu itself. If I 
am not mistaken anybody can be a member of the GA which also means that big 
companies or interests can capture tha GA - and that has to be avoided as I 
see it.

/ Eva



At 09:23 1999-11-19 -0800, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>Six members of Working Group D met in Los Angeles, California on November 2,
>1999 in conjunction with the first annual meeting of ICANN. While the group
>was small, we were able to discuss a couple of the key issues necessary to
>complete our work.
>
>  * What level of formalism should a WG follow?
>
>We began by focusing on the latest draft (http:), and specifically on the
>comments received prior to the LA meeting about the high level of detail
>involved in making motions, calling for votes, etc. We generally agreed that
>although the group had wanted an online equivalent of Roberts' Rules of
>Order, sections 4.1 through 4.5 of the current draft was not something that
>we would like to see adopted.
>
>Going back to why we felt the need for defined rules of process in the first
>place, most of us agreed that the problem was with the hypothetical runaway
>Chair, who ignored viewpoints or labeled as "consensus" a view that the
>Chair favored but which was not truly a consensus position.
>
>We agreed that a good WG Chair makes all the difference, and with a fair,
>trusted Chair, you would not need an online version of Roberts' Rules of
>Order. John Klensin suggested that we focus only on the problem of the
>unfair Chair and create a rule to "kill the Chair" and elect a new one if
>the group encountered problems.
>
>We agreed that this made sense and that we would examine objective means of
>recalling a Chair and empanelling a new one as a substitute for the defined
>rules for motions and voting, etc. that are currently in the draft.
>
>What do you think?
>
>  * What happens if a WG cannot reach a consensus position?
>
>We discussed the very real problem of what happens if a Working Group could
>not reach consensus on any or all of its work. Should the NC be able to pick
>from six or seven different position papers, none of which have garnered the
>position of a consensus choice, or should the groups be forced to come
>together prior to submitting their proposals?
>
>On this issue, the experience of Karl Auerbach and John Klensin in the IETF
>was insightful. As I understand it, in the IETF, a WG will report only on
>those matters on which it has reached consensus, and if there are issues
>that still need to be solved, a new working group will be chartered to
>address them. The consensus items from the first WG would be frozen (a "soft
>freeze," as John Klensin described it) and the second WG would begin looking
>at the remaining areas of disagreement. Through this iterative process, a
>true consensus position should emerge.
>
>What do people think about such a process?
>
>  * Role of the General Assembly (NEW!)
>
>Finally, at the General Assembly meeting in Los Angeles, Karl Auerbach made
>a motion that the GA assembly be given the power to (i) create its own
>Working Groups, (ii) propose new policies for adoption by ICANN, and (iii)
>approve or disapprove the work product of DNSO working groups. (Someone
>please correct me if I've misstated this or omitted any portion of it.)
>
>Since the WG-D draft already allowed for some versions of (i) and (ii), and
>because time for considering the motion was short, this issue was referred
>to this Working Group for further consideration. Since we've already dealt
>with some of these issues, the real issue, as I see it, is:
>
>"Should the General Assembly have a formal role, separate from the open
>public comment period, in approving or disapproving the work of a Working
>Group?"
>
>Karl or anyone else can elaborate on this.
>
>
>
>           -- Bret





_______________________________________________________________________
Eva Frölich
e-mail:	eva@nic-se.se
NIC-SE, Box 5774, 114 87 Stockholm

http://www.nic-se.se