[wg-review] IRT Centers of Interest
On 16:50 25/01/01, YJ Park (MINC) said:
>I hope you can clear up these concerns which have been expressed
>by some members of NC members.
>As you planned, the managed discussion is expected to take off soon.
> > Ken I agree. I have heard that again given the sheer number of emails,
> > meaningful participation in this WG has been difficult. Philip, if it is
> > not already on our business plan, I think we need to add a project to
> > finish the work that WGD has accomplished so we have a set of
> > procedures in place soon before we create any new working groups.
If you remember this WG initiatied with a Karl Auerbach proposition
I enacted through a set of seconded motions and specialized sites
after you acknowledged the pertinence of the topics.
Karl proposed to determine what are the real Centers of Interest of
the DNSO Members and to allow every of them through the DNSO/GA
to discuss them in an organized manner.
This is the way four test sites have been created:
- http://idnh.org for individual domain name heldership
- http://stld.org for specialized TLDs and TLD applicants
- http://dndef.org for a technico-legal of the domain name
- http://byconsensus.org for an anlysis of the consensus rules etc...
Several other topics have been proposed before I had to stop reading
the WG-Review list:
- small entreprises of less than 200 people
- languages in the iCANN documents
- multi-lingual domain names
- lexical definitions
- digital divide
- DNS security
- SSRAC and CRADA
- new addressing schemes
and there would be many of them to add to such a list.
From experience in coordinating/assuming the creation of these
initial sites (left in their early January state), I would suggest a
1. the DNSO secretariat should:
- register CI and their sites, may be host them so there may be
some control, coordination... (CI is a generic name but they
can be "working group", "drafting committee", etc... On local
or regional issues they may be in appropriate languages as
long as reports are translated in English (and in other language
as per the then prevailing iCANN policy).
- site secretariat should be on a volontary basis or by the
DNSO is allocated a (very small) budget.
- let assume the topic "abcd":
- the CI could be labeled DNSO/GA/ABCD for good
- its URL could be http://abcd.dnso.org (real or alias)
- it should be allocated a dnso-abcd ML
- the sites should use the same template with external
links to update. This way visistors may quickly
understand the purpose and the status of the works
and achievements of the Center of Interest
2. Each Center of Interest should organise a Moderation
system (Chair, Secretariat, co-Chair, etc... as it wants)
It should designate a single spoke-man in a coordination
ML where constituency Chairs could be in copy.
3. Any one wanting to be a permanent contributor
should be able to link a page to the CI site.
Consensus will be reach when all the contributors
have published an agreement on a given part. So
every one can see, contribute and comment the
progression towards consensus uncovering.
4. The target is not to reach consensus on anything
else than a complete synthetical collection and a
compared documentation of all the existing diverging
CI are not here to decide. But to provide up-to-date
exhaustive studies on their subject.To the advantage
of the BoD, of the Members, of the Public.
You will note that there is no exclusion nor exclusive in
such a system. Everyone may contribute, but the qualified
contributors have good chances to be acknowledged and
hearded more easily, giving bearings to the Members but
imposing nothing. This system is simple to organize,
fully transparent and only targeting realistic and usefull
consensa. I note that other systems than ML may be
used as alternatives or complements.
I think that method - then worked out with your support - has
a real future. It should be coupled with a on-purpose polling
system for a few new good steps towards net-democracy.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Digitel - Ken Stubbs" <email@example.com>
>To: "names council" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:31 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
> > without a definitive, understandable, methodology, it is very difficult
> > 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
> > and constructive
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <email@example.com>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > discussions, set interim goals so we know when we have accomplished
> > > something - not goalss like "get the report done," develop
> > > that discuss particular topics then bring the issues back to the full
> > group
> > > for a discussion, employ better collaborative technologies. We have to
> > > something.
> > >
> > > I am willing to help, get involved, get more people involved, but we
> > to
> > > organize this WG.
> > >
> > > Dr. Gendron
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> > > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
>Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html