Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]

Ms. Park,
Please consider using this model in the report back to the NC.  The beauty of
this method is that it can easily be used for a combination majority rule and
consensus.
The ongoing discussion regarding the 13 items is becoming quite productive.  I
would recommend that the co-chair be considered a compiler of positions and not
an advocate, as Eric has done in this model. This is the foundation of consensus
and credibility building, two goals for the WG.
Sincerely,

Eric wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Joanna Lane
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:03 PM
> To: ERIC@HI-TEK.COM
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
>
> We could productively use this in a questionnaire for Topic 11. IDNH, which
> I propose is adapted to the same format as Topics 1 thru 10. as follows:-
>
> 1: Should the minimum criteria for joining IDNH Constituency include
> agreement to a set of rules designed to encourage consensus building and
> productive communications?
> YES [ x   ]
> NO  [     ]
>
>  2. Should documentation on consensus building and productive communications
> be forwarded to members at the time of subscription?
>
> YES [  x  ]
> NO  [     ]
>
> 3. Should WG chairs be required to undertake training in consensus building
> and productive communication before heading a consensus-process WG or task
> force?
>
> YES [ x   ]
> NO  [     ]
> [Option C]
> OR, WG's could be chaired by independent third parties.  I am sure there are
> organizations that DNSO could contract to handle this.  (Of course funding
> would
> be an issue)  I don't know if I support that idea or not but I am throwing
> it out
> for debate...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of ERIC@HI-TEK.COM
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:41 PM
> To: eric@springbreaktravel.com
> Cc: 'Greg Burton'; 'wg Review list'
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *
>
> >From what I can tell this is exactly the type of solution which should be
> reported
> back to the NC.  "That the working group has determined that the system
> would be
> benefited greatly by training in the areas of consensus building and
> productive
> communications."
> Sincerely
>
> Eric wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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