[wg-review] Re: Work Groups

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

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I want to thank everyone who came forward to let
> us know you're still interested in the "work" of
> the WG-Review.
>
> At this point, I think it's the Chair's job to
> redefine the "work" of the WG-Review, and to set
> us back to "work". (I have to agree with Miles B.
> Whitener that the "work" of the WGr needs to be
> clearly elucidated, as I myself am quite confused
> by this point.)
>
> Thank You All,
>

Excellent, I think that we have been working on Working Groups, our
scheduled topic all along.

Voting of any sort helps keep us focused and helps keep interest up, but
should not be viewed as the end all and authoritative. It also gives us
some statistics for people who like that sort of thing. I think everyone
should be free to conduct them and offer results as they find them, I
like voting on the different subjects and learning what I need to know
more about before I vote.  Sotiris's poll here was like a vote and it
shows there is interest, very helpful. So I think polls and voting
should be considered useful educational tools in the working group
process. (My own similar polls earlier in this group and in the ga
indicated a slightly higher interest but were attached to both positive
and negative discussions) I for one am going very remote and will
receive my messages on a quick download but probably will not be on line
for time enough to send any, but I will be watching and learning and
forming opinions.

Reports:  This is not good, as we reach consensus here in this group by
compromise our final product is compromised further to where it boils
down to a suggestion to think about it more. (see recent post re: Ms.
Swinharts report)

I like the idea of summaries and positions being posted and then worked
on and finalized. Joanna has shown great skill at this method as has
Danny Younger.  Also this allows for easier catch up and appears to lead
to better threading.

Alternate sites: Joanna's again is most helpful and I think we should
all try to use worldatlarge with the firetalk. I think as we grow more
will be available, didn't we vote on Joops and others. My ICANNTALK will
be operational a little late but not for the next one.

Cross posting: It seemed like it kind of brought things along faster and
stirred interest within our group when the ga was consistently included.

Role of the Chair:  This is a personality thing.  Probably more
education to help the chairs would be helpful.  Like template formats
and the simplified/modified Roberts Rules of Order beginning to become
uniformly incorporated.

Staffing:  ICANN must budget for the telecommunications and Staff to run
a working group such as this one. A full time staffer and a full time
Technician and the equipment is bare minimum.  We should all be
embarrassed we do not have at least that.

Outreach:  Each Working Group should be encouraged to run their own
public relations program to get people who may be interested the
postings, reports and inquiries produced by the group.  Yes I mean like
the legislatures who do not know what is going on and industry and civic
groups and news services.  Painful but I did not incorporate the word
transparent, but that is what it means.

Diversity:  Each group should cross post enough announcements to obtain
participants who could at least help with inquiries and make their own
in language announcements both within and outside the working group.
Outreach -Education - transparency -participation - a more legitimate
result.


Please point out my failings in these thoughts, so we all can learn. I
think Phil King should write a summary on the topic with Sotiris and
present it for comments. I think Greg should dissect what I wrote out
here and provide an outline for covered subtopics so that every one is
on the same page.

Please consider my numerous postings today as meant to be averaged.
Tally ho it is accross the ocean I go.
Ultreya,

--
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