[council] policy-making options
I hope this is also helpful to the members of the council.
----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <email@example.com> -----
From: Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 00:37:45 +0200
Subject: policy-making options
In order to add a bit more structure to the discussion on
policy-making, here are a couple of parameters by which
policy-making can be "tuned", or by which different options may be
characterized. Note that "working group" and "task force" are
mostly used interchangeably in what follows:
- Composition of working group: Same for all topics at a given time
(<=> names council or board does everything itself); appointed by
council or board (strict task force model; committees as used by
board); appointed by stakeholder groups (loose task force model);
self-selected (working group model).
- Communication with public while work is going on: Listen-only plus
behind-the-curtain discussions with groups perceived important
(board; board committees); active outreach (some of the current
task forces; counterexample: dot-org; it may be argued that
dot-org registrant representation was lacking; outreach should
include _exchange_ of views and arguments); outreach built into
self-selected membership (working group model).
Additional options (orthogonal): Public archives of discussions;
dedicated comment periods.
- Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO
process via names council; may or may not have power to modify
input from WG); directly (board committees).
Additional options (orthogonal to that):
* Output may be considered binding/non-binding/almost-binding.
* Board may interact with TF while work is going on. Similar to
relationship between public and WG.
I'd like to hear what you think about these options.
One thing which should be kept in mind while thinking about these
options is that different circles of stakeholders may imply the need
for different mechanisms. What is appropriate for
consensus-building in the PSO concerning their policy area may be
entirely inappropriate for the DNSO (or its successor), or for a
ccSO. Also, cross-SO discussions may require a process different
from discussions within individual SOs.
Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
----- End forwarded message -----