To ensure it doesn???t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the
discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit
further up the list of agenda items?

to accelerate things a bit, can we agree to not come up with the
umpteenth chair selection procedure document and just start with,
guess what, the DNS WG's?

Fully agree that we should adopt an existing one (that's what we did for ipv6-wg.) I struggle with the "draw lots" clause though; I think when there are multiple remaining candidates, the WG ought to express a preference. I know there's no perfect way to do this, but RIPE has existing models (that must surely be at least as representative as drawing lots.) So I propose the procedure used by ipv6-wg and aa-wg.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/ipv6-wg-chair-selection-process

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/anti-abuse/anti-abuse-wg-chair-selection-process

Since the ipv6-wg text doesn't name the specific WG except at the very top, I suggest to use that as the reference text.

All the best,

Anna

--
Anna Wilson
Service Desk Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+353 (0)1 6609040 anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270