RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *

["Eric" <eric@springbreaktravel.com>]

For the first time since its inception, a member of this WG has finally
indetified a problem, documented why it is in fact a problem and recommended
a solution.  Greg has based his position one one assumpiton:

>It currently appears that there has been no training or education <
>in consensus process for members of the NC, for constituencies, or<
>for WG chairs.									 <

Does anyone feel that this is incorrect?  I would suggest that anyone that
has followed all of the threads thus far would be hard pressed to find fault
in that statement.  My question to you, Greg, is this:  How does this help
us reach our goal of providing a recommendation to DNSO within the alloted
time period?

Eric Dallin



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Greg Burton
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:39 PM
To: wg Review list
Subject: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


Dear WG members,

If you've been following all the threads, you know that I believe that the
NC as constituted is an unnecessary structural impediment to consensus.
This does not depend on who is on the NC, or who gets a piece of that pie -
the very existence of the NC under the current structure impedes consensus.
I also believe that the NC is unfair - and especially unfair to the
individuals who become part of it.

Consensus is more than a word, it's a process and methodology. It currently
appears that there has been no training or education in consensus process
for members of the NC, for constituencies, or for WG chairs. In some
constituencies, this may not be required - in others it could be extremely
valuable. Expecting people to adequately facilitate a consensus process
without understanding how consensus works and what can be done as technique
is absurd.

It is very very difficult to both advocate a position and moderate a
consensus process. That becomes almost impossible if the person attempting
it is also perceived as having some form of coercive power outside of the
process. And that is EXACTLY the situation any NC member is placed in when
attempting to chair a WG. Combine that with lack of training in consensus
building, and the stress and demands of the rest of someone's life, and you
have a recipe for procedural disaster. Facilitation of consensus process is
as much a technical discipline as network administration, and prudent
organizations certainly don't appoint network admins just because they're
available and willing to take abuse.

All of the above leads me to the conclusion that the number 1 problem
within the DNSO is precisely this lack of education and training about
consensus processes. Accordingly, and at a minimum, I propose that 1. some
form of task force be developed as a training ground in consensus; 2. that
professional facilitation for the task force be contracted by either the
DNSO or ICANN; and 3. That all NC members and WG chairs must participate in
that group before heading a consensus-process WG or task force.

Your comments are, as always, welcome.


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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


--
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