[wg-c] A recommendation for Working Group C to meet ICANN's policy on public participation

[bob broxton <broxton@erols.com>]

On November 13, 1999, Co-chair Jonathan Weinberg invited suggestions on
formal goals and milestones for Working Group C.

The goal of our working group should be to finish its mission as quickly
as possible, while making sure the working group addresses all the
issues that concern our assignment.  According to Jon's November 13th
posting, he believes our working group has now reached rough consensus
on three issues (while stating that one of these issues has not as yet
had a formal consensus call).

What ultimately needs to be accomplished is for all the issues which
bear on our assignment to be written up, with all the pros and cons
discussed as to each of the issues, and the rationale furnished for
Working Group C's consensus as to each issue.  Until this is done and
furnished to the public for comments, Working Group C could be subjected
to criticism and possible challenge that the public was never given
sufficient information so as to be able to provide meaningful comments
on key decisions by the working group.  Working Group C could be accused
of not following the ICANN process for " the development of consensus
based policies (such as policies concerning new names) in an open,
transparent and bottom-up manner in which interested individuals have an
opportunity to participate and comment" (see ICANN FAQ on new generic
top level domains -posted September 13,1999).

The Interim Report issued on October 23,1999, speaks  in terms of
"rough consensus"  on two issues (See Interim Report, p.2 "Rough
Consensus") but does not provide a detailed analysis of the pros and
cons on these issues.  What is the heart of the Interim Report are seven
position papers that address various issues that are important to the
individual group writing that particular position paper.

The Interim Report was issued for two weeks of public comment.  The call
for public comments did not specifically state that this will be the
only time Working Group C will request comments on the group's work
product but this might could be implied from the wording of the last
sentence in the "Request for comments" section of the Interim Report:
"The working group's final report will draw on the public comments and
on its further work".   In my opinion it would totally unfair to obtain
comments on the Interim Report and then discuss new issues and new
consensus positions in the Final Report, if Working Group C does not
request another round of public comments.

If  Working Group C does not intend another round of public comments it
should so specifically state this position in an amended Requests for
Comments on the Interim Report and extend the time allowed for
submitting comments on the Interim Report.  At least the public will
then have been warned that public comments will only be received one
time and that the Final Report will contain new consensus positions on
key issues that were formulated without the opportunity for comment from
the public.  As this approach would appear to be a departure from normal
procedural fairness and appears to violate the ICANN promise of an
"open, transparent and bottom-up manner in which interested individuals
have an opportunity to participate and comment" (see cite above),  I
would suggest a vote of a majority of Working Group C should be obtained
if the group ever intends to not request further comments from the
public before issuing the Final Report.  Any one disagreeing with this
vote could then express that opinion in a dissenting report to the Final
Report.

If  Working Group C does not invite public comments on a detailed
discussion and analysis of all the key issues studied by the working
group before issuing the group's Final Report, our entire effort could
be undermined and motives of "rush to judgment" attributed to the study
group.  You can anticipate a challenge will be made later on in the
process that until Working Group C issues a draft report that contains a
discussion of the pros and cons on the key issues, and the specific
rationale for Working Group C's adopting a position on each issue,
there has been no meaningful opportunity for the public to comment.
This could necessitate Working Group C then having to go out for a new
round of comments after the Final Report is issued.  This could greatly
prolong the entire process.

I believe Working Group C should announce up front that Working Group C
will issue a "Draft Final Report" for public comments. Working Group C
should address the comments received on the Interim Report in the Draft
Final Report.  Working Group C could then study the comments received on
the Draft Final Report and discuss these comments in the Final Report.
Any members of Working Group C who disagreed with either the Draft Final
Report or Final Report could write dissenting opinions.  The issuance of
dissenting opinions should not be allowed to delay our issuing the Final
Report - we need to move as expeditiously as possible (while making sure
we afford the public the opportunity to comment on all key issues) in
finishing the assigned work of  the group and issuing a final report.

I believe this proposed approach is the fastest way to finish the
assignment to Working Group C and end up with a product and process of
which Working Group C is justifiably proud.  Whatever process is used
Working Group C should meet the test promised by ICANN of "the
development of consensus based policies... in an open, transparent and
bottom-up manner in which interested individuals have an opportunity to
participate and comment."  (See cite above).  By stating now that
Working Group C will issue a "Draft Final Report'  for comments,  the
public can be assured the group will be meeting this promise of ICANN.

Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation to insure
Working Group C complies with ICANN's stated policy on public
participation and comment.

Bob Broxton
broxton@erols.com