Re: [wg-review] Please submit your proposal for DNSO Review

[brianappleby@netscape.net]

"YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com> wrote:
>
> > We could start by using such definitions in our own WG report.
> 
> It's time to sort the issues out.
> Waiting for the proposals to come in, I draw some draft structure.
> 
> 1. Appreciating Jonathan Weinbeger who has responded to NC 
>     Review TF questionaire which was formally requested by NC 
>     on Dec. 19, I do submit his comments as one of proposals.
> 
> 2. Do we need Constituency?
>   
> 3. If we need, how to create New Constituencies?
> 
> 4. Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency Needs recognition.
> 
> 5. How can we achieve or measure "Consensus"?
> 
> 6. Money Talks in DNSO/ICANN?
> 
> Please send your proposals!!
> 
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
If the goal for DNSO is to get help from the working group as to ways to 
improve their ability to generate/create/achieve consensus, then why not 
involve professional or experience consensus ‘experts’ to support the 
efforts?  Their process-oriented tools and techniques will help separate 
process from personal/professional interests and help define a fair and 
effective way to improve the current poor situation.  

As to specific thoughts of my own, consensus building should go through a 
structured process defining the issues, both direct and indirect; defining 
alternative positions on the issues, listing or explaining the trade-offs 
involved in the various position choices; and then dissecting the issues to 
define points of both consensus and contention, with work then progressively 
focused on eliminating the latter.

Also, a listing of various special interests or personal interests of the 
various parties/players involved directly and indirectly in the issues would 
be most helpful to assist judging credibility of sources to help weigh the 
value on input as the process unfolds.  

In terms of definition, please let me share the following, found after a 
quick search on ‘consensus’...quite an industry in and of itself.

“A public consensus is a collective view of the people in a community that is 
more than a majority, an average, a middle ground or a compromise. A 
consensus is what you would expect if people -- even people who disagree with 
each other -- sat down together and honestly tried to find a workable 
solution acceptable to all. And wouldn't quit until they found it.
A consensus is a different kind of middle-ground position -- one that the 
largest number of people can live with.”

Excerpt taken from website of:
Decision Point Inc.
http://www.decpoint.com/pubcon.html

I have no affiliation with the website mentioned above but I did notice it 
does include additional information about how communities can use tools and 
techniques to develop consensus.  

Note that they use the term ‘position’ rather than ‘decision’.  My take on 
this translates into consensus being ‘defining what something is or should 
be’ rather than ‘deciding what needs to be done’ in order to achieve the 
goals.  Such goals should be set to be consistent and operational expressions 
of the organization’s consensual definition of ‘what it is,’ ‘what it should 
do,’ and ‘who should do what.’  

My two cents on constituencies is: domain name organizations who influence 
the issues or process of ownership of obtaining and retaining ownership of 
domain names should be serving the needs of existing domain name holders, 
potential domain name holders, and those affected by the use of domain names, 
i.e. trademark holders, lawyers, and the Internet community inclusive.  





 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at 
http://webmail.netscape.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