DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I

At 06:34 PM 1/17/01, Erica Roberts wrote:
>Thanks Greg,
>The voting tally will certainly do much to establish the level of
>credibility of this report.  Given the tight timeframe within which we all
>must work, when do you expect to have the results?


Preliminary data included in the report as Appendix 22 and Appendix 23 
(consensus, constituencies, and general assembly), as well as a report with 
polling data on the question of an individual's constituency, are scheduled 
for a formal vote of acceptance commencing this Friday and ending Monday 
January 22nd. An additional preliminary report on the Names Council 
questions should be following shortly thereafter. Philip and Theresa should 
already have the passwords and login for the polling site I used, as I sent 
that to them about 36 hours ago. With any luck, additional and finalized 
report sections should roll out on a regular basis thereafter.

Appendix 22 and Appendix 23 include both raw data and my interpretation of 
it, so the raw data should be already usable while the interpretation needs 
to be approved. Unfortunately, only one other member of the group chose to 
enter questions into poll format, and his questions were not tied to the 
Task Force questions. In my personal opinion, starting a group off with an 
existing polling structure in cases like this would lead to substantially 
faster results and a cleaner process all the way around.

Based on the February 20th date established by YJ, I have proposed a 
schedule of 4 day sections for deeper  and more concentrated consideration 
of issues. Each period will conclude with motion formation and a vote, 
overlapping the discussion period on the next topic:

>1. Preliminary Report Discussion and Approval
>2. Constituencies
>3. General Assembly
>4. Names Council
>5. Work Groups
>6. Standardized Procedures and Language/Translation Issues
>7. Outreach
8. Final Report Approval

I appreciate the time constraints involved, and will continue to expedite 
the process as much as possible. At the same time, if this working group is 
viewed as a laboratory, it appears that allowing it to work to that date 
might well yield substantial results on process and effectiveness. Because 
of the open nature of the WG, we have had people involved who have never 
participated in an email list, let alone a working group. Their presence 
and learning curves offer us a valuable opportunity to see what works, and 
what structures need to be in place so that future groups start off more 
smoothly. I believe it would be a mistake in the long run to ignore their 
education (and our education in what is needed) for the benefit of slightly 
faster results.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>