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

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

We may be able to get some positive things accomplished if we can all agree
to abide by those guidelines.  Is everyone in agreement?

1. Deal with the current content, not the person who said it, or their past
history. Dealing in personalities destroys the foundation of consensus.

2. Ignore anyone who doesn't comply with 1. (very difficult to do, I know,
but utterly necessary)

3. Attempt to avoid assuming that person X is motivated by agenda Y. Ignore
any response that attempts to tell you what someone else is REALLY doing,
or what the REAL agenda is. Any such response is not interested in
consensus, but in persuading you to some political position or other. In
consensus, we shouldn't be concerned with who's agenda is what - we should
be concerned with community dialogue and generating agreement on relevant
content where possible. This is not to say that there aren't agendas
operating - just that if we focus on the presented content, what emerges
will be either accepted as consensus statements or not, and the agenda is
irrelevant.

4. When replying to a message that contains both personality content and
productive content, deal just with the productive content and delete the
personality content from your reply.

5. Use the thread headers originally proposed by YJ when making an original
post, with or without the grouping modification I proposed.

6. Ask ourselves before we post "Does this comment facilitate or impede the
consensus process?" and "Is this post relevant to the thread topic?"

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Greg Burton
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:40 PM
To: wg Review list
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *


At 12:48 PM 1/4/01, Eric wrote:
>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?

Well, if there is agreement that this IS a major problem, and that my
proposal as rough as it is has merit, then that should be included in the
report. If nothing else, it would likely reduce future chaos to a more
manageable level.

In terms of the goals of this WG, it implies that we need to be especially
aware of the limitations and handicaps the NC members and chair are working
under. If we want to make this work better, as wg members we can do certain
things:

1. Deal with the current content, not the person who said it, or their past
history. Dealing in personalities destroys the foundation of consensus.

2. Ignore anyone who doesn't comply with 1. (very difficult to do, I know,
but utterly necessary)

3. Attempt to avoid assuming that person X is motivated by agenda Y. Ignore
any response that attempts to tell you what someone else is REALLY doing,
or what the REAL agenda is. Any such response is not interested in
consensus, but in persuading you to some political position or other. In
consensus, we shouldn't be concerned with who's agenda is what - we should
be concerned with community dialogue and generating agreement on relevant
content where possible. This is not to say that there aren't agendas
operating - just that if we focus on the presented content, what emerges
will be either accepted as consensus statements or not, and the agenda is
irrelevant.

4. When replying to a message that contains both personality content and
productive content, deal just with the productive content and delete the
personality content from your reply.

5. Use the thread headers originally proposed by YJ when making an original
post, with or without the grouping modification I proposed.

6. Ask ourselves before we post "Does this comment facilitate or impede the
consensus process?" and "Is this post relevant to the thread topic?"

If we can do these things, we can address a great deal of material
constructively in a limited time.

Regards,
Greg


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.
>

--
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