[UA-discuss] Some Recommendations in Working Groups

Jim DeLaHunt list+uasg at jdlh.com
Tue Jul 30 21:21:00 UTC 2019

Hello, UA-discuss.

There is a lot to support in this message from Richard Nims. There are 
also some things which I think might not be so helpful. I will 
interleave comments in Richard's message.

On 2019-07-29 04:06, richard nims wrote:
> ... [some text omitted for brevity] ...
> *Fundamental Principles of Operation*
> For the development of standards, openness and due process are 
> mandatory. Openness means that any person who has, or could be 
> reasonably expected to have, a direct and material interest, and who 
> meets the requirements of these procedures has a right to participate by:
> a) Attending working group meetings
> b) Becoming a member of the working group
> c) Expressing a position for chair of working group and its basis,
These are positive sentiments. I think there should be, at the top of 
the list, something about doing specific activities to promote Universal 
Acceptance, preferably outside the UA-Discuss and UASG context. We are 
not here to build an organisation for its own sake. We are here to 
spread Universal Acceptance. Authority should derive from accomplishments.
> Due process is based upon equity and fair play. The standards 
> development process should strive to have both a balance of interests 
> and not be dominated by any single interest category.
I support these sentiments, but I also think they are pretty general and 
not very helpful to spread Universal Acceptance.
> *Election of Chair of working group: *The UASG administrative group 
> must getelections done for every working group. The interested members 
> of the working group must file self-nomination or any member of 
> working group should nominate, ...
I don't see why this proposal puts so much emphasis about electing the 
chair of the working group, and so little emphasis on how the group will 
work. What really matters is to spread Universal Acceptance in the real 
> ...fundamentally that individual member nominated shall not be on any 
> position in UA administrative group or any other working groups at the 
> same time. Members of the working group should only be allowed to cast 
> the vote and select chair of working group....
This looks like it is trying to prevent or solve a problem, but I'm not 
sure what the problem is. Why shouldn't a leader of the UASG also 
participate in a regional working group for their own region?  Why 
shouldn't someone with expertise, or active in multiple regions, 
participate in multiple regional working groups?  Is there a concealed 
message that the UA administrative group is a danger to be kept at a 
distance?  If so, I don't agree with that.

My experience with these working groups is that it is difficult to find 
people willing to get the work done. We should welcome anyone who wants 
to put in the effort.

> *Working Group: *Working group member should be individual. Each 
> member is expected to attend meetings. We must record attendance at 
> meetings via teleconferencing and/or electronic means, e.g., Internet 
> conferencing, shall count towards the attendance requirements apart 
> from F2F meeting during ICANN or other events.
> *Responsibilities of Working Group: *
> Set goals and deadlines and adhere to them
> Prioritize work to best serve the group and its goals
> Get the materials available for community related to working of group
> Maintain lists of unresolved issues, action items, and assignments.
> The working group will engage in a fact-finding effort of the 
> perceived problems raised in there space and what are the possible 
> solutions, and what are the pros and cons relating these possible 
> solutions. What activities are actually underway, how extensive are 
> they. The Working Group can circulated surveys to gather facts about 
> the technical and issues raised by services currently being provided 
> in there space.
It seems to me that all this focusses on the operation and the internal 
activities of the working group. Nothing mentions the external 
activities of spreading Universal Acceptance in the real world. It seems 
a big oversight to me that the responsibilities of the working group 
does not include, "promote Universal Acceptance". It seems that before 
we expect members to attend meetings, we should expect them to do 
activities outside the meetings to spread Universal Acceptance, to 
contribute to Universal Acceptance discussion on email lists, and to 
have evidence of this activity be readily available for others to confirm.

I have a concern that this proposal will set up a structure which will 
consume a lot of energy for its own internal operations and politics, 
and won't be very focussed on spreading Universal Acceptance. I think 
that is not the best way to direct our attention and energy.

> Kind wishes
> Richard Nims
Best regards,
      —Jim DeLaHunt, software engineer, Vancouver, Canada.

     --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh at jdlh.com     http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/)
       multilingual websites consultant

       355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada
          Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190730/2eed697a/attachment.html>

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list