[council] Review WG-D's status report in Feb. 8 meeting.

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Hello Erica, Bret and all,

Can I make several suggestions responding to your concerns?

We also noted Caroline's suggestion to let WG-D come up with its
final report to facilitate WG model in the DNSO. I do agree.
We need some format to let WG function as it has been designed.

Erica, your example from Australia might be helpful for NC to look into.
Can you distribute the relevant documents for NC to consider its future
step?

Bret and Therea, is it going to be possible for you to make a
presentation on WG-D status? As we all know this WG has been
working since 1999 June and it's more than enough for this group
to come up with its report.

Philip, can you confirm this topic as NC chair and Intake Committee
chair? BTW, from now on the chair of intake committee will be Paul
by his volunteer, if  my memory is coerrect.

Thanks,
YJ

> I entirely agree.  I dropped of the wg-review list for precisely the
reasons
> canvassed below.
> However, I think this has been a very useful exercise - just because it
has
> brought into clear focus the need for structure and method.  In my
> experience, it is very difficult for wg to achieve good results without
> support from a professional secretariat experienced in project management
> and policy analysis.  In this, I think we have much to learn from the
> processes developed for Standards Associations.
> I'm not sure what happens in other countries, but in Australia, the
> Australian Standards Association relies heavily on working groups.
However,
> it provides the WGs with strong support in the form of booklets detailing
> the responsibilities of the Chair and WG members, details of the entire
> process involved in the development and adoption of new standards, and
> professional project managers to support the WGs and ensure that the
proper
> processes are followed.
> I envisage that the proposed NC  professional secretariat will establish
> similar processes to facilitate the development of consensus policies for
> the technical administration of the DNS.
>
> Regards,
> erica
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Digitel - Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> To: "names council" <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:31 PM
> Subject: [council] Fw: [wg-review] Concerns
>
>
> > fellow council members
> >
> > this independent analysis by one of the wg-review  participants
represents
> > an excellent example of the reason why, in the future, some sort of
> > structure and methodology needs to be developed for managing working
> groups.
> >
> > without  a definitive, understandable,  methodology, it is very
difficult
> to
> > ascertain that the finished product really represents  legitimate,
> > broad-based, consensus opinions.
> >
> > ken stubbs
> > p.s. i don't know who this gentlemen is but his comments are very
> insightful
> > and constructive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>
> > To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 7:39 AM
> > Subject: [wg-review] Concerns
> >
> >
> > > To all:
> > >
> > > This has been an interesting experience......wg-review. I can
understand
> > why
> > > many have dropped out.
> > >
> > > I believe in that if you want to have something down, that you ask the
> > > busiest person you know.  They know how to budget their time and thus
> get
> > > things done. This group surely takes that and more.
> > >
> > > BUT, this work group is almost impossible. I have several concerns:
> > >
> > > 1) Many emails are very personal in nature - flaming each other and
not
> > > sticking to the issues.  This increases the about of reading
immensely.
> > > 2) The discussions can only be likened to 30 people in a conference
room
> > > where there are 10 different topics being discussed simultaneously,
with
> > > people on the opposite ends of the room.
> > > 3) The lack of structure, policy, and direction makes this process
> > > untenable.
> > > 4) The few people that are left in this group cannot be called
> > > representative of the Internet.  This consensus (sorry) is not useful.
> > > Think about it, we publish a report...make a statement.  The someone
> does
> > > not like it - they have the option of negating everything we say
because
> > > this groups is a small contingent that could no way represent the
> Internet
> > > as a whole.
> > >
> > > I think our work is vital, but we need to model ourselves on standard
> > > business processes.  Some ideas - set agenda's, have focus
> group/moderated
> > > discussions, set interim goals so we know when we have accomplished
> > > something - not goalss like "get the report done,"  develop
> sub-committees
> > > that discuss particular topics then bring the issues back to the full
> > group
> > > for a discussion, employ better collaborative technologies. We have to
> do
> > > something.
> > >
> > > I am willing to help, get involved, get more people involved, but we
> need
> > to
> > > organize this WG.
> > >
> > > Dr. Gendron
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
>
>