[nc-intake] RE: [council] Review WG-D's status report in Feb. 8 meeting.

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

YJ,

I believe Bret's already answered your question regarding presentation --
that being yes.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> YJ Park
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:42 PM
> To: Erica Roberts; Bret A. Fausett
> Cc: council@dnso.org; nc-intake@dnso.org
> Subject: [council] Review WG-D's status report in Feb. 8 meeting.
>
>
> Hello Erica, Bret and all,
>
> Can I make a motion responding to your concerns?
>
> We also noted Caroline's suggestion to let WG-D come up with its
> final report to facilitate WG model in the DNSO. I do agree.
> We need some format to let WG function as it has been designed.
>
> Erica, your example from Australia might be helpful for NC to look into.
> Can you distribute the relevant documents for NC to consider its future
> step?
>
> Bret and Therea, is it going to be possible for you to make a
> presentation on WG-D status? As we all know this WG has been
> working since 1999 June and it's more than enough for this group
> to come up with its report.
>
> Philip, can you confirm this topic as NC chair and Intake Committee
> chair? BTW, from now on the chair of intake committee will be Paul
> if  my memory is correct.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
> > I entirely agree.  I dropped of the wg-review list for precisely the
> reasons
> > canvassed below.
> > However, I think this has been a very useful exercise - just because it
> has
> > brought into clear focus the need for structure and method.  In my
> > experience, it is very difficult for wg to achieve good results without
> > support from a professional secretariat experienced in project
> management
> > and policy analysis.  In this, I think we have much to learn from the
> > processes developed for Standards Associations.
> > I'm not sure what happens in other countries, but in Australia, the
> > Australian Standards Association relies heavily on working groups.
> However,
> > it provides the WGs with strong support in the form of booklets
> detailing
> > the responsibilities of the Chair and WG members, details of the entire
> > process involved in the development and adoption of new standards, and
> > professional project managers to support the WGs and ensure that the
> proper
> > processes are followed.
> > I envisage that the proposed NC  professional secretariat will establish
> > similar processes to facilitate the development of consensus
> policies for
> > the technical administration of the DNS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > erica
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Digitel - Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> > To: "names council" <council@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:31 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>