RE: [wg-review] Concerns

["Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>]

Maybe if the workgroups were better organized, showed good procedure, and
progress towards unified goals then ICANN would have to take us seriously.

From: 	Derek Conant [mailto:dconant@dnsga.org]
Sent:	Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:42 AM
To:	Dr. Michael S. Gendron
Cc:	wg-review@dnso.org; dtreaty@dnsga.org; subscribers@dnsga.org;
cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
Subject:	Re: [wg-review] Concerns

I am synthetic to your concerns and explanation.

The problem here though is that it appears that ICANN does not follow the
recommendations from any work group.  The work groups ICANN deploys are
controlled by ICANN and appear to be facades for the public to believe that
they
are participating or contributing to ICANN, when in fact there contributions
mean nothing to ICANN.

Regardless of ideas and comments suggested to ICANN from work groups, ICANN
appears to completely ignored such ideas and comments and at the same time
suggests that the working group agreed upon certain ICANN agendas, when it
in
fact the working group did not.  I have seen this time and time again and so
has
most participants.

My suggestion for a solutions here is that ICANN must immediately show that
it
is changing its erroneous policy.

Derek Conant


"Dr. Michael S. Gendron" wrote:

> To all:
>
> This has been an interesting experience......wg-review. I can understand
why
> many have dropped out.
>
> I believe in that if you want to have something down, that you ask the
> busiest person you know.  They know how to budget their time and thus get
> things done. This group surely takes that and more.
>
> BUT, this work group is almost impossible. I have several concerns:
>
> 1) Many emails are very personal in nature - flaming each other and not
> sticking to the issues.  This increases the about of reading immensely.
> 2) The discussions can only be likened to 30 people in a conference room
> where there are 10 different topics being discussed simultaneously, with
> people on the opposite ends of the room.
> 3) The lack of structure, policy, and direction makes this process
> untenable.
> 4) The few people that are left in this group cannot be called
> representative of the Internet.  This consensus (sorry) is not useful.
> Think about it, we publish a report...make a statement.  The someone does
> not like it - they have the option of negating everything we say because
> this groups is a small contingent that could no way represent the Internet
> as a whole.
>
> I think our work is vital, but we need to model ourselves on standard
> business processes.  Some ideas - set agenda's, have focus group/moderated
> discussions, set interim goals so we know when we have accomplished
> something - not goalss like "get the report done,"  develop sub-committees
> that discuss particular topics then bring the issues back to the full
group
> for a discussion, employ better collaborative technologies. We have to do
> something.
>
> I am willing to help, get involved, get more people involved, but we need
to
> organize this WG.
>
> Dr. Gendron
>
> --
> 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