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

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

If consensus is a stated objective of ICANN how can it possibly exist without a
standing department with officers and employees whos job it is to carry out this
function.  It is like Ford not producing automobiles, but having a marketing
department to sell them.  Certainly, establishment of such a department should be
a reccomendation of this group.
Sincerely,

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 11:39 AM 1/9/01, brianappleby@netscape.net wrote:
> >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.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> >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.
>
> Sounds like you've done this for real before. It's been suggested *sigh*
>
> >In terms of definition, please let me share the following, found after a
> >quick search on 'consensus'...quite an industry in and of itself.
>
> Mmhmm, it is. I'm still working on my links list for folks who asked -
> hopefully I'll have it up soon.
>
> >"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.
>
> Works for me, although I'm a little more formal than that. That's pretty
> close to a normally understood meaning.
>
> They definitely wouldn't recognize what has been called "consensus process"
> here in the past. Take a look at this post, if you didn't see it through
> the spam. Then read the response from Kent, particularly where he repeats
> that "my" version of consensus isn't what was intended by the word......
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00737.html
>
> >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.
>
> It can be either a policy position or an action directive. Some
> conveners/facilitators prefer to focus on policy process, others on action
> process. In either case the process of clearly defined rules, understanding
> of and agreement to the process, agreed upon procedures, and respect for
> each other are core to the effort.
>
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard