RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

I would agree with Eric that Greg has made some valid suggestions on procedure for posting to this List.  I wholeheartedly concur.  There is no room for 
getting sidetracked by personal issues or prejudiced agendas.  Our purpose is to explore concerns that may be formulated as recommendations/answers 
to the Review Questionnaire.  Whether this is a pointless exercise or no, this appears to be the appointed task of this WG.  If those who have strong 
opinions on substantive matters can express them within this framework, all the power to them.  We're not here to curtail anybody's individual right to 
freedom of speech and expression.  However, as this WG appears somewhat of a calculated apparatus, I urge its members to return to the fundamental 
give and take of dialogue, not harangue.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


1/4/01 4:17:28 PM, "Eric" <eric@springbreaktravel.com> wrote:

>We may be able to get some positive things accomplished if we can all agree
>to abide by those guidelines.  Is everyone in agreement?
>
>1. Deal with the current content, not the person who said it, or their past
>history. Dealing in personalities destroys the foundation of consensus.
>e statements 
>2. Ignore anyone who doesn't comply with 1. (very difficult to do, I know,
>but utterly necessary)
>
>3. Attempt to avoid assuming that person X is motivated by agenda Y. Ignore
>any response that attempts to tell you what someone else is REALLY doing,
>or what the REAL agenda is. Any such response is not interested in
>consensus, but in persuading you to some political position or other. In
>consensus, we shouldn't be concerned with who's agenda is what - we should
>be concerned with community dialogue and generating agreement on relevant
>content where possible. This is not to say that there aren't agendas
>operating - just that if we focus on the presented content, what emerges
>will be either accepted as consensus statements or not, and the agenda is
>irrelevant.
>
>4. When replying to a message that contains both personality content and
>productive content, deal just with the productive content and delete the
>personality content from your reply.
>
>5. Use the thread headers originally proposed by YJ when making an original
>post, with or without the grouping modification I proposed.
>
>6. Ask ourselves before we post "Does this comment facilitate or impede the
>consensus process?" and "Is this post relevant to the thread topic?"
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
>Behalf Of Greg Burton
>Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:40 PM
>To: wg Review list
>Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *
>
>
>At 12:48 PM 1/4/01, Eric wrote:
>>My question to you, Greg, is this:  How does this help
>>us reach our goal of providing a recommendation to DNSO within the alloted
>>time period?
>
>Well, if there is agreement that this IS a major problem, and that my
>proposal as rough as it is has merit, then that should be included in the
>report. If nothing else, it would likely reduce future chaos to a more
>manageable level.
>
>In terms of the goals of this WG, it implies that we need to be especially
>aware of the limitations and handicaps the NC members and chair are working
>under. If we want to make this work better, as wg members we can do certain
>things:
>
>1. Deal with the current content, not the person who said it, or their past
>history. Dealing in personalities destroys the foundation of consensus.
>
>2. Ignore anyone who doesn't comply with 1. (very difficult to do, I know,
>but utterly necessary)
>
>3. Attempt to avoid assuming that person X is motivated by agenda Y. Ignore
>any response that attempts to tell you what someone else is REALLY doing,
>or what the REAL agenda is. Any such response is not interested in
>consensus, but in persuading you to some political position or other. In
>consensus, we shouldn't be concerned with who's agenda is what - we should
>be concerned with community dialogue and generating agreement on relevant
>content where possible. This is not to say that there aren't agendas
>operating - just that if we focus on the presented content, what emerges
>will be either accepted as consensus statements or not, and the agenda is
>irrelevant.
>
>4. When replying to a message that contains both personality content and
>productive content, deal just with the productive content and delete the
>personality content from your reply.
>
>5. Use the thread headers originally proposed by YJ when making an original
>post, with or without the grouping modification I proposed.
>
>6. Ask ourselves before we post "Does this comment facilitate or impede the
>consensus process?" and "Is this post relevant to the thread topic?"
>
>If we can do these things, we can address a great deal of material
>constructively in a limited time.
>
>Regards,
>Greg
>
>
>Subject: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
>
>
>>Dear WG members,
>>
>>If you've been following all the threads, you know that I believe that the
>>NC as constituted is an unnecessary structural impediment to consensus.
>>This does not depend on who is on the NC, or who gets a piece of that pie -
>>the very existence of the NC under the current structure impedes consensus.
>>I also believe that the NC is unfair - and especially unfair to the
>>individuals who become part of it.
>>
>>Consensus is more than a word, it's a process and methodology. It currently
>>appears that there has been no training or education in consensus process
>>for members of the NC, for constituencies, or for WG chairs. In some
>>constituencies, this may not be required - in others it could be extremely
>>valuable. Expecting people to adequately facilitate a consensus process
>>without understanding how consensus works and what can be done as technique
>>is absurd.
>>
>>It is very very difficult to both advocate a position and moderate a
>>consensus process. That becomes almost impossible if the person attempting
>>it is also perceived as having some form of coercive power outside of the
>>process. And that is EXACTLY the situation any NC member is placed in when
>>attempting to chair a WG. Combine that with lack of training in consensus
>>building, and the stress and demands of the rest of someone's life, and you
>>have a recipe for procedural disaster. Facilitation of consensus process is
>>as much a technical discipline as network administration, and prudent
>>organizations certainly don't appoint network admins just because they're
>>available and willing to take abuse.
>>
>>All of the above leads me to the conclusion that the number 1 problem
>>within the DNSO is precisely this lack of education and training about
>>consensus processes. Accordingly, and at a minimum, I propose that 1. some
>>form of task force be developed as a training ground in consensus; 2. that
>>professional facilitation for the task force be contracted by either the
>>DNSO or ICANN; and 3. That all NC members and WG chairs must participate in
>>that group before heading a consensus-process WG or task force.
>>
>>Your comments are, as always, welcome.
>>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>



--
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