Re: [wg-review] 5. [WG] Mike Roberts on "noise" in the process

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I think Mike is right there, but we could improve: this was something to be 
discussed at http://byconsensus.org ...

I think the real problem is the lack of qualification of the new commers 
and the lack of reference. You cannot read the archives of a WG-Group (who 
ever do it) and pretend to know about the subject. This is why I think the 
best solution is that the participants to a WG maintain a position paper, 
they adapt as the debate progresses. A new commer has only to read them to 
understand what has been agreed, and the level of competence required. Also 
it protects against perturbators who usually have no established and 
structured doctrine. Eventually it permits consensus uncovering process 
trhough the permitted merging or addition of parts of the position statements.

Jefsey


On 15:44 14/02/01, Greg Burton said:
>Given the arguments advanced against working groups (too much spam, too 
>much conflict, too many offtopic posts, doesn't lead to consensus, etc.) I 
>found this quote from Mr Roberts' testimony before the Senate today of 
>particular interest.
>
>Any comments? The complete statement is at 
>http://www.icann.org/correspondence/roberts-testimony-14feb01.htm
>
>    "I am frequently asked, "Why is there so much noise around ICANN? How 
> can you get any work done over
>    there?" My response is that ICANN is noisy by design. We are intended 
> to be the forum in which interested
>    parties - some might characterize them as combatants - have the 
> opportunity to advance multiple futures for the
>    domain name and address system, and have those competing and 
> frequently contradictory futures merged into
>    one satisfactory solution. By definition, it will be noisy, and messy, 
> and sometimes slow, and frequently
>    contentious, but if it works -- and the jury is still out, although I 
> am reasonably optimistic -- it may well be a useful
>    model for other global issue resolution mechanisms."
>
>
>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