[wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

Topic: Constituencies
Discussion Period: January 26 - January 30
Thread Prefix: 3. [Constituencies]

We are now in the period to revisit the constituencies discussion. 
Currently stated positions have called for retaining the constituency 
structure, disbanding it, and modifying it. An overall issue of determining 
objective criteria for the establishment and monitoring of new and existing 
constituencies has also been brought forward. Because the IDNH question has 
been broken out and the motion passed by this WG to create a working group 
on the topic has been presented to the NC, I believe it would be more 
fruitful at this time to leave this out of the discussion.

Some links to previous material are included below. It's not complete, and 
if I have left out an important post, I apologize. If you have material 
that you feel should be linked to the discussion, please provide the url to 
the list archives for that post. Especially, if a member of the ccTLD 
constituency could provide a link to their proposal that would help us in 
looking at that topic.

When posting on this topic, it would be useful to include the section 
number of the task force draft report it addresses wherever possible. 
Please help the process by staying on topic.

References:
Adopted Statement of the WG: 
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01832.html
Informal Poll Questions on Constituencies: 
http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a
Appendices to WG-Review Report of January 15: 
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01558.html
         [Appendix 4] Karl Auerbach's Comment on Constituency
         [Appendix 7] Bret Fausset's Proposal to Create New Constituency 
Procedure

Voluntary Rules:
Please try to observe these general and voluntary rules when posting to 
WG-Review:

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 personality content from anyone who doesn't comply with 1. (very 
difficult to do, 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.

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?"

7. Don't cross-post to other lists.


Process:

Those members of the WG who have participated in the polls have indicated a 
desire to operate on a majority vote basis. Accordingly, nothing will be 
reported out of this group as a consensus opinion unless the specific 
question has been properly formed as a question to be answered on the basis 
of consensus and consensus has been achieved on that question. The votes of 
members for or against any question or statement will be reported out for 
each statement.

A majority of the group reject the concept of their report being labeled 
"consensus" by any other body, including the NC and Board of Directors. An 
explicit statement to this effect will be included in each report produced 
by the WG. Any attempt to claim consensus in this group that does not meet 
the standards of the previous paragraph will be challenged on behalf of the 
group by the chair and co-chair.

Formal voting on questions or positions requiring group approval will take 
place in the Voting Booth, under the administration of Mr. Joop Teernstra. 
Mr David Farrar (dpf), a member of this WG, has experience in constructing 
polls professionally, and has offered his assistance to the group in 
forming neutral statements for voting and polling. Question, positions, and 
motions to be submitted will be placed before the group for at least 48 
hours of discussion of the language before being adopted for a vote. 
Because not all members can participate in short timeframe votes, questions 
for a vote will remain open for 5 days.


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