RE: [ga] RE: Survey

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

You can chose to make a contribution which helps to improve and broaden understanding of the TF, or you can choose to make noise. 

Your choice.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: dannyyounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org; Transfer TF; icann board address;
Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; Karen Rose; kathy smith; Kay Bailey
Hutchison; Phil Gramm
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Survey


Marilyn and all assembly and TF members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Let's set the facts out:  the small group is/was:
> Ross Rader,Registrar constituency;  Grant Forsyth, BC; Dan Steinberg,GA;  Rick Shera, ccTLD; and Mark McFadden, ISPCP, who worked on the survey. I invited them to undertake this project and participated ex officio, and then based on their draft, provided the typing of the FINAL version of the survey questions.   You seem to be accusing Ross of taking full credit for the work of the small working group.

  No Danny was CLEARLY stating that YOU Marilyn were in effect taking
credit for work that YOU were not solely responsible.  Those ARE the
facts!  (See Danny's previous comments below along with URL Reference).

  Just perhaps Marilyn yet again you are suffering from some sort of
reading comprehension problem.

> I'm sure he would never intentionally do that.    I asked Ross to act as team leader in the development process and he did so. I've heard no complaints from his colleagues in the drafting process.
>
> Assigning work and delegating is one of the functions of an elected chair.

No a "Chair" is to facilitate primarily, not delegate.  It is clear now where
many of your perception problem come from Marilyn.  You have revealed
here that you leadership knowledge base is lacking...

>
>
> The step now before all of the TF is to help to "improve" the questionnaire.

  Why?  What need to be improved BEFORE the now questionnaire, of
some dubious origin, be presented to any and all of the stakeholders
in the DNSO?  Improvements can be made yes, but in follow on iterations.
What is seemingly much more important is getting directed and general
feedback.  Perhaps this *questionnaire* can in some ways can do that
now.  Follow on later if needed.

> I note that the TF is taking input on the questionnaire. I suggest that you might want to work through Dan to provide constructive input. You have a wealth of experience that few have and your insights could help to ensure a good survey document.

  Why would any DNSO participant/stakeholder need to go through anyone?
Why not do that directly to the task force Forum?  Or would that be too
open and transparent?  If so, than I can only say that sounds allot like
AT&T Customer support!  :(

>
>
> On another front, let's not confuse the issues. When I was elected chair to the TF, I accepted the responsibility to be a chair, rather than an advocate. You may be critical of my style as a chair, or you may merely be critical.

  Danny's comments below could only accurately be construed as constructive
criticism.  If you are feeling a bit put upon, perhaps, as it seems from
you comments above, that is because it is not your style, but your gross
inaccurate characterization (And I m being very kind here! ) of Danny's
comments/remarks.

>
>
> The BC position on the TF is represented by Grant Forsyth, who is an able representative of the BC perspective.
>
> So, any concerns you have about who represents the  BC and their perspective can be best taken up with Grant.
>
> In the meantime, I consider it my task, as elected chair, to work to develop process; seek to hear all sides, from those in the TF who are engaged; from those who seem to be seeking to delay outcomes, and even to continue to cajole those who seem to be "missing in action" or too busy on some days, so that they make the time... that is the role of the chair.... and to create mechanisms to support the criteria of outreach, so that the TF can make a recommendation.

  If you are really seeking ot hear all sides as you contend here Marilyn.  Than
the Transfer TF would be open to all, and therefor transparent.  It is not,
hence I can only say that you are failing terribly at your task as is this Task
force.

>
>
> As you and I know... one can be part of the problem, or one can be part of the solution... isn't that always everyone's challenge?

  Indeed true.  And you are looking in this instance as in others in the
not to distant past, part of the problem.

>
>
> so, you've got a good part of your perspective about me and the questionnaire wrong. How about making a positive contribution through Dan and helping to fix any areas where you have  improvements in language? And then offer to help with outreach to users/registrants.

  Again why does any DNSO GA member of member of any constituency
need to go through anyone if as the MoU and White paper require open
and transparent participating by any and all interested parties?

>
>
> You have a unique set of background experiences.  Your perspective is undoubtedly somewhat unique. And would be useful to better understand and tap... to advise the TF's work. Please work through your GA representative. We welcome hearing about how to improve the survey.

  First suggestion from me.  Develop the follow on Survey later.  Run with this
one of dubious origin now, and in the future, do any development of survey's
in a completely open and transparent ML forum...

>
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:08 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Subject: Survey
>
> Dear Marilyn,
>
> You have posted a survey to the Transfers TF list, and you have indicated
> that "The survey was developed by a small group of TF members who worked
> together to generate a draft which is now presented to the full TF for input
> and suggestions."
>
> As I review the survey, this document appears to me to be virtually identical
> to the survey that was solely developed by Ross Rader and which was
> previously posted (Feb. 21) to:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00144.html
>
> Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's work-product
> that you modified only in the most minor of ways.   I have previously noted
> that you are under the instructions of the BC to advocate Ross's solution to
> the transfers problem... Can't you set aside your bias just briefly enough to
> allow others on the TF to participate?  You asked no one to assist in the
> preparation of this survey, and yet you present it as if it was a project
> given over to volunteers on your TF to handle...
>
> Why not allow the other constituencies and the GA to get involved?  This
> should not become strictly the RC/BC roadshow.
>
>
> --
> 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@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