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

[brianappleby@netscape.net]

Dear Eric,

I suggest we view our role here as a 'customer' and ICANN is the vendor who 
is required (in theory or in principle) to serve customer requests or needs.  
If we define what consensus is, define or propose a process or set of 
parameters within which a process could be developed, then we have a much 
better foundation upon which to work in the pursuit to get ICANN to focus on 
what is deemed appropriate or inappropriate.

If we assume two things: 1) ICANN needs help in order to figure out how to 
'do the job' (giving them the ultimate benefit of doubt), and 2) ICANN needs 
to be able to be held accountable for the processes and procedures it used to 
operate, then we can help set the parameters within which they function.

The issue of accountability (to whom, for what, and what are the punishments 
if procedures are not followed) is still a broad and heavy damper on efforts 
to achieve meaningful change, but even if the request for support to assist 
in DNSO efforts was intended as a way to protect the status quo through 
description, it did open the door for broader involvement and community 
action by those involved in this working group.  

Karl and others are working on the accountability part, let us help support 
the effort to define the requirements and game rules.

Regards to all,
Brian Appleby
brianappleby@netscape.net



Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM> wrote:
>
> 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
> 
__________________________________________________________________
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