Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6
Ken Stubbs ha scritto: I am concerned here that the first conclusion could be skewed by using as a basis for the conclusion the total number of participants. I see your point, and it is a valid one. However, this should be a consensus-based working group, which means that work should continue until full consensus, or at least rough consensus, has been reached. That way, it would be irrelevant whether any constituency or interest group is over- or under-represented, since you need in any case to accommodate everyone's requests, and find compromises that can be acceptable to all. The problem you expose appears only when you start to work by "support" and "alternate views", thus creating the problem of objective measurements of the levels of support. Personally, I think that only items on which there is extremely broad consensus, and no strong objections from any participant, should go into the report. If we can't manage to find agreement on something, we should simply leave it out or list all views at the same level, rather than opening the disagreement on whether the one listed as "supported" or "agreed" is actually the most supported one, and to which extent - which, I agree, is something that is very difficult to assess fairly in an open WG. Also, there is a disconnect between the GNSO constituency system and the range of stakeholders that are affected by Whois. Some groups, such as governments, individual registrants and final users, are not represented in any voting constituency of the GNSO. Others, such as domainers or web hosting companies, might belong to some constituencies but aren't actually represented in their leadership. Ideally, participation in this work should expand beyond traditional constituencies, which is why we are using an individual-based open working group. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
|