[ga-rules] Building Consensus

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Chuck

I thought I'd remind people of one of your posts.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

----- Original Message -----
From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: 'Jonathan Weinberg' <weinberg@mail.msen.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:38:05 -0500
Subject: RE: [ga] note on timing


I'd like to recommend that any report include as much objective data as
possible.  That will assist the NC in assessing the degree to which
consensus was obtained in the GA.  In particular, I believe that the report
should contain the following:
- Number of registered participants on the GA list
- Number and percentage of participants in the discussion
- Specific data regarding results of any votes or polls taken
- Any data available regarding the representativeness of the
recommendation(s) made
- Brief summaries of the major arguments, pro and con
- Timeframe during which the discussion took place
- Brief description of methods used to discuss the issues and
evaluate consensus.

I suspect that some will suspect my motives in the above but let me say that
one of the things some of us in the DNSO have been trying to do within the
NC budget committee is to work towards significant improvements in the
consensus building process.  It is widely accepted that past DNSO efforts to
manage the consensus process have been very ineffective.  I believe that
some of the main reasons for this are as follows:
- There has been much too much subjectivity.
- Little or no guidance was given to working groups, constituencies
and the GA in terms of what results were expected.
- There has been very little effort put into developing and then
implementing processes and procedures that would serve as guidelines in the
consensus building efforts.

There is no doubt that building consensus around issues in a global and very
diverse setting is extremely complex so efforts to accomplish what I am
suggesting will take a lot of time and work.  But I am still optimistic
(maybe naively) that there is hope.

In the meantime, the GA has an opportunity in the process currently going on
to demonstrate some useful approaches to the NC and the DNSO as a whole.
And I complement those who have been participating in the recent list
dialog.  In my opinion, there has been a very useful exchange of opinions,
facts, questions and analysis.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:25 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] note on timing

The Names Council has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday, March 28 to

discuss the proposed Verisign agreement, and to agree on a statement
regarding the agreement, to be forwarded to the Board, on behalf of the
DNSO.  Philip Sheppard, as NC Chair, has asked the GA and each of the
constituencies to report their views to the NC by noon ***this
Sunday***.  He asks:  "Please keep reports short, listed in note form and
focused on the desirability of the status quo (old agreement) and the new
agreement. What are the pros and cons ? Which agreement do you
prefer?"  Sheppard will use the following three days to generate a
consolidated statement that the NC and GA Chair can approve on Wednesday.

This doesn't give us much time -- to be precise, we've got about
three
days left.  Under the circumstances, I think we have two tasks:  First, we
need a single document summarizing the points that appear to have general
(although not universal) support on the list.  I think Roberto is working
on such a document; David and anyone else who has text to offer should get
it to him.  Second, once the document is distributed, folks need to give
Roberto enough feedback so that he can make a decision by Sunday whether to
pass it on to the NC.


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