Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Greg:
Your message makes me glad I nominated you for co-chair. I don't fully agree with it! But it shows thought and leadership.

Now let me explain. I think what you propose won't hurt, and may help significantly, but won't solve the big problems.

The presence or absence of consensus in a group, or its ability to move toward consensus, is a symptom of certain underlying structural features of the group. Adopting "consensus" as a goal will not change those underlying structures. 

Your approach may make participants more civil, more willing to listen, and even more productive. Those are important goals that I support. But the DNSO still has to make policy choices, and that is an inherently political process.

YJ said she would define consensus as majority vote. 
I would propose a slightly more demanding standard - say three fifths. But ultimately I accept the fact that we're going to disagree about things. The pursuit of consensus, which in my book (and I worked with the Quakers in anti-draft activity) means unanimity, or at least the unwillingness of anyone to block action by the rest of the group.

Not an attainable goal in this context, in my opinion.

--MM


>>> Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> 01/04/01 14:29 PM >>>
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 thatthere 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