RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Eric" <eric@springbreaktravel.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Joanna Lane
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:03 PM
To: ERIC@HI-TEK.COM
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


We could productively use this in a questionnaire for Topic 11. IDNH, which
I propose is adapted to the same format as Topics 1 thru 10. as follows:-

1: Should the minimum criteria for joining IDNH Constituency include
agreement to a set of rules designed to encourage consensus building and
productive communications?
YES [ x   ]
NO  [     ]

 2. Should documentation on consensus building and productive communications
be forwarded to members at the time of subscription?

YES [  x  ]
NO  [     ]

3. Should WG chairs be required to undertake training in consensus building
and productive communication before heading a consensus-process WG or task
force?

YES [ x   ]
NO  [     ]
[Option C]
OR, WG's could be chaired by independent third parties.  I am sure there are
organizations that DNSO could contract to handle this.  (Of course funding
would
be an issue)  I don't know if I support that idea or not but I am throwing
it out
for debate...




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of ERIC@HI-TEK.COM
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:41 PM
To: eric@springbreaktravel.com
Cc: 'Greg Burton'; 'wg Review list'
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *


>From what I can tell this is exactly the type of solution which should be
reported
back to the NC.  "That the working group has determined that the system
would be
benefited greatly by training in the areas of consensus building and
productive
communications."
Sincerely

Eric wrote:

> For the first time since its inception, a member of this WG has finally
> indetified a problem, documented why it is in fact a problem and
recommended
> a solution.  Greg has based his position one one assumpiton:
>
> >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.
<
>
> Does anyone feel that this is incorrect?  I would suggest that anyone that
> has followed all of the threads thus far would be hard pressed to find
fault
> in that statement.  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?
>
> Eric Dallin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Greg Burton
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:39 PM
> To: wg Review list
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
> --
> 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


--
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