<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
JUST A GREAT BIG THANK YOU TO YOU AND GREG FOR RUNNING THE CENSUS GATHERING
POLLS. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT AS A SOPHIST I ARGUE WITH THE WAY EVERY SINGLE
QUESTION WAS WORDED. BUT AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PARTICIPANT OF THE WG I AM IN
ADMIRATION OF ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND BELIEVE THE POLLS ARE QUITE BENEFICIAL.
SINCERELY,
Joanna Lane wrote:
> 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
Emanuel.exe
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|