Re: [ga] policy-making options

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Joop,
>
> At 09.04.2002 12:17, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>open working group model
> >> - may result in too large groups
> >> - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
> >> + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals
> >> + workload can be distributed well
> >
> >Dismissing a WG for being self-selected is not necessarily justified. In many cases self-selection is more legitimate than selection.
>
> My point was that it is easy for an oversight body
> (or intermediate body) to dismiss the results of an
> open working group process by calling it self-selected
> and then to replace the working group policy
> recommendation by their own.

  Yes this is true and has been done in the GA
on several occasions.  None the less to use the
excuse of a WG being "Self Selected" in no way
diminishes the fact that an open and transparent
structure of a WG vs a closed and perhaps
non-represenaitive TF structure is far more
likely because it is self selected, to provide
or determine a more accurate set of results.

>
> >Large groups are a plus, not a minus, as long as their energy can be organized and distributed.
> >- Minus is that an open WG that works with a mailing list, may be hindered by individuals with a mission to be contentious. Remedies are moderation and/or the use of web based ("pull" rather than "push")  discussion mechanisms.
>
> It's not only a question of the tools -- it would even
> be more difficult if everyone was in the same room.
> (Let alone teleconference.) It's always a trade-off: Either
> the group is sufficiently large to include all concerned
> parties or it is sufficiently small to work efficiently.

  Not really accurate here Alex.  A self selected
group such as a WG may or may not be too large.
The fact that a WG is much more open and transparent
overrides the false notion that such a group would be
potentially too large.

>
>
> I believe the active outreach mechanisms must be improved
> significantly (and I believe the At Large could be a useful
> tool for significant outreach), but the group (maybe
> "limited working group" is an appropriate label) has to
> be built in a way that it can actually achieve results
> and arrive at a policy recommendation. If it doesn't, it's
> only a discussion forum and the policy will again be made
> top-down.

  Policy recommendations are based usually on a set of
basic agreed upon parameters of factors, either specifically
or broadly stated in the form of a motion or a resolution that
is than voted upon by the members of the WG and
in the case of the DNSO GA, voted upon by the assembly
members.  As these have several times been reached and
nicely accomplished within WG in the GA in an open and transparent
manner in the past, there is no reason other than perhaps some
GA members would wish for other members ideas not to be heard
or vetted, that the GA using WG as it has successfully in the past,
do so again.


>
>
> My personal impression is that the maximum size for such a
> group is somewhere at 15 or 20 persons, regardless of the
> tools used.

  Your personal feelings are you own of course, and of course
they should be expressed freely.  None the less such an arbitrary
number is really not sufficient or necessarily rational to base any
size upon.

> If that is so (and that's obviously open for
> debate), the question is how they are selected so that
>  (a) all groups concerned feel sure that their input will
>      not be ignored,

This can be best and likely only achieved in using an
open and transparent process or method such as a
WG..

>  (b) the group members fulfill the given task and produce
>      a report or even a policy recommendation in a reasonable
>      amount of time

  This can be achieved, as it has in the past in the GA, with
a set time frame in the WG, and intermediate goals set at
the time of the formation of the WG or just prior to such
a WG being opened.

>  (c) the composition and results of the groups are so
>      compelling that bodies higher up in the process do not
>      ignore or completely change its findings.

Yes.  And only open and transparent WG's can honestly
achieve this goal or requirement.  TF's cannot.

>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html