RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Eric wrote:
In response to your recent inquiry I wanted to know how this model
worked if at
all and hope that it will be implemented by the chair assigned to it.

Eric,
We received a very positive response from the few who responded to the
strawpoll, with one negative to question 3, but I'm delighted to see these
questions have been included in the new poll.
Well done Greg.

Joanna

The poll for 14. Consensus is now published at
http://www.pollcat.com/tzk24p05h3_a  The results are at
http://www.pollcat.com/report/tzk24p05h3_a

The poll for 7. Names Council is now up at
http://www.pollcat.com/tzk24l3plu_a The results are at
http://www.pollcat.com/report/tzk24l3plu_a

The poll for 3. Constituencies is still at
http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p1puu4w_a with results at
http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a . If you haven't taken it,
please do - it will give quick answers to those questions, and I would hope
that more than the current 20 respondents will use it.

The poll for 4. GA is still at http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p41u8xq_a with
results at http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p41u8xq_a . Again, if you
haven't taken it please do - only 3 people have so far.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:53 PM
To: jo-uk@rcn.com
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


In response to your recent inquiry I wanted to know how this model
worked if at
all and hope that it will be implemented by the chair assigned to it.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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 [     ]
> NO  [     ]
>
>  2. Should documentation on consensus building and productive
communications
> be forwarded to members at the time of subscription?
>
> YES [     ]
> 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 [     ]
> NO  [     ]
>
> I so, how can this be implemented?
>
> Please feel free to comment
> Joanna
>
> -----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