RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 20:02 4/01/01 -0500, Joanna wrote:
>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 [     ]
>NO  [     ]
>
> 2. Should documentation on consensus building and productive communications
>be forwarded to members at the time of subscription?
>
>YES [     ]
>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 [     ]
>NO  [     ]
>
>I so, how can this be implemented?
>
>Please feel free to comment


With permission of the Chair, I would like to put these questions up in the
Polling Booth, so hat a consensus, or lack of it can be easily tabulated.
For those who would like to modify either the question or their reply
(yes,but..  or No,but..) the Booth provides for a public comment line.

If the Chair could formulate additional questions where the Booth could be
helpful in gathering the WG's opinions without overloading the mailing list,
please let us have them.


  
Joop Teernstra, LL.M.
the Cyberspace Association
the Individual Domain Name Owners'constituency
www.idno.org


--
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