<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I
- To: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
- Subject: Re: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I
- From: Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:47:58 -0700
- Cc: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>, "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>, <nc-review@dnso.org>, "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>, "vint cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>, <Amadeu@nominalia.com>, <ivanmc@akwan.com>, <phil.davidson@bt.com>, <f.fitzsimmons@att.net>, <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>, <mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>, <hans@icann.org>, "S. H. Kyong" <shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>, <andy@ccc.de>, <junsec@wide.ad.jp>, <quaynor@ghana.com>, <roberts@icann.org>, <helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de>, <linda@icann.org>, <council@dnso.org>, "Alejandro Pisanty, CUAED + FQ, UNAM" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>, "Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
- In-Reply-To: <02c701c080ee$e1107da0$8dd4fea9@pcax10series>
- References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010117092616.00a4c020@www.feedwriter.com>
- Sender: owner-council@dnso.org
At 06:34 PM 1/17/01, Erica Roberts wrote:
>Thanks Greg,
>The voting tally will certainly do much to establish the level of
>credibility of this report. Given the tight timeframe within which we all
>must work, when do you expect to have the results?
Erica,
Preliminary data included in the report as Appendix 22 and Appendix 23
(consensus, constituencies, and general assembly), as well as a report with
polling data on the question of an individual's constituency, are scheduled
for a formal vote of acceptance commencing this Friday and ending Monday
January 22nd. An additional preliminary report on the Names Council
questions should be following shortly thereafter. Philip and Theresa should
already have the passwords and login for the polling site I used, as I sent
that to them about 36 hours ago. With any luck, additional and finalized
report sections should roll out on a regular basis thereafter.
Appendix 22 and Appendix 23 include both raw data and my interpretation of
it, so the raw data should be already usable while the interpretation needs
to be approved. Unfortunately, only one other member of the group chose to
enter questions into poll format, and his questions were not tied to the
Task Force questions. In my personal opinion, starting a group off with an
existing polling structure in cases like this would lead to substantially
faster results and a cleaner process all the way around.
Based on the February 20th date established by YJ, I have proposed a
schedule of 4 day sections for deeper and more concentrated consideration
of issues. Each period will conclude with motion formation and a vote,
overlapping the discussion period on the next topic:
>1. Preliminary Report Discussion and Approval
>2. Constituencies
>3. General Assembly
>4. Names Council
>5. Work Groups
>6. Standardized Procedures and Language/Translation Issues
>7. Outreach
8. Final Report Approval
I appreciate the time constraints involved, and will continue to expedite
the process as much as possible. At the same time, if this working group is
viewed as a laboratory, it appears that allowing it to work to that date
might well yield substantial results on process and effectiveness. Because
of the open nature of the WG, we have had people involved who have never
participated in an email list, let alone a working group. Their presence
and learning curves offer us a valuable opportunity to see what works, and
what structures need to be in place so that future groups start off more
smoothly. I believe it would be a mistake in the long run to ignore their
education (and our education in what is needed) for the benefit of slightly
faster results.
Regards,
Greg
sidna@feedwriter.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|