Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

In response to your recent inquiry I wanted to know how this model
worked if at
all and hope that it will be implemented by the chair assigned to it.

Joanna Lane 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
> Joanna
>
> -----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

Emanuel.exe