Re: [council] Fw: [wg-review] Concerns

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

Hello Greg and WG-Review members,

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.

Thanks,
YJ


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>; "names council" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:07 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Fw: [wg-review] Concerns


> 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.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Digitel - Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
To: "names council" <council@dnso.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
groups.
>
> without  a definitive, understandable,  methodology, it is very difficult
to
> 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
insightful
> and constructive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>
> To: <wg-review@dnso.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
get
> > 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
does
> > 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
Internet
> > 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
group/moderated
> > discussions, set interim goals so we know when we have accomplished
> > something - not goalss like "get the report done,"  develop
sub-committees
> > that discuss particular topics then bring the issues back to the full
> group
> > for a discussion, employ better collaborative technologies. We have to
do
> > something.
> >
> > I am willing to help, get involved, get more people involved, but we
need
> to
> > organize this WG.
> >
> > Dr. Gendron
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>