[council] Fourth Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

This is my 4th concern as Chair of WG-Review designated by NC.

First, the "Terms of Reference" requested by some NC members was
submitted before NC teleconference. However, during the teleconference
NC focused on whether NC is going to form WG or not for almost
one hour without discussing the presented Terms of Reference.
Instead, NC tried to pin down its deadline together with the relations
between WG-Review and Review TF.

That was the first mistake NC has made in Dec teleconference.
NC ignored its responsibility to look into the Terms of Reference
which has been requseted by NC.

Therefore, there have been continuous misunderstanding between
some NC members and myself, chair of WG-Review which made
WG members put into more confusion.

People can blame me on my incapability and inexperience in dealing
with overwhleming wandering voices with clumsiness as WG-Review
Chair, which I also feel sorry for.

However, it is not right to associate that blame with "WG's mandate"
and " WG-procedure itself" which you finally concludes here WG
process can not be presumed to be the consensus-development
process itself. You may be right. However, we need more time to
jump into such a conclusion.

================================================
Out of Theresa's report
------------------------

However, more strongly enforced Working Group mandates,
stronger procedures, and Working Group chairs maintaining focus on a
Working Group mandate is necessary to improve the effectiveness of
Working Groups.
[snip]
An example of this was evident in the DNSO Review Working group,
which was mandated to specifically ensure outreach in the DNSO review
process. See wg-review archives, and specifically notes by NC members
to remind chair of deadline and need to adhere to scope of working group
mandate.
[snip]
In this sense, the activities of open for a is important, but debate, and
even
votes (use of votes in Working Groups is useful for information gathering
purposes, but it tends to polarize opinion, and should be used with
caution )
should be viewed as valuable intellectual inputs into the consensus
development process; but they can not be presumed to be the consensus-
development process itself.
=================================================

Here is my suggestion.

Even though I don't think it's fair how you interpret the WG management
without due consideration or background, I don't mind your interpretation
as an observer of WG-Review.

However, a series of logic you present here should wait until WG-Review's
full exploration on this issue before Melbourne meeting.

So, please withdraw this part until WG-Review can provide its own report
rather than my status report as of Jan 15th.

                                           [Part 4]