[ncdnhc-discuss] comment: NC Task Forces

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Adam,
You are very right. Please look at the end of the mail.
On 13:44 24/10/01, Adam Peake said:
>>-NC review interim report: Philip Sheppard said that this report was
>>now being circulated for public comment until October 28 when the TF
>>would look at the comments and produce the final report to be
>>submitted to the NC on November 4 2001.
>
>My comment:
>The task force system should be abolished and all DNSO policy making 
>conducted through the open processes: working groups.
>Best I remember there was no support for the creation of these small 
>closed Names Council driven "task forces" in the public DNSO review. The 
>DNSO working group D (Bret Fausett) did not recommend the adoption of 
>these closed and controlled groups.
>
>Perhaps other NCC members will have comments.

Some of the WG-Review propositions and started experiments was a "position 
link" method.

1. each document or theme is allocated a mailing list at the initiative of 
interested Members (to get motivated people: the experience of the GA shown 
that imposed ML are not accepted).
2. a site is associated to the ML where the participants "position links" 
are presented.
3. these are simple links to a position page by who who wants, on their own 
site.
4. on their position pages the participants may present their positions and 
change them as the debate goes on. The target is to get all the position 
pages progressively agree or agree on their disagreement. Once this is 
achieved for one point, there is a consensus on that point. This point is 
there phrased into a "consensus link" page.

The advantages are that
- any onlooker may quickly review the status of the debate and positively 
contribute. So competent people may come and advise without comitting and 
wasting time.
- positions being published the publication acts as a filter against trools 
or incompetents
- complex positions may be easily argumented and when not understood 
correctly presented in a better way, so waste of time on misuderstandings 
are reduced
- as everyone takes the habit to check the position links, the 
consensus-link at the bottom of the page becomes an easy reference and 
reward for furthering the debate.

Such a system must include a polling service. To sense the common feeling 
at some stages. To vote the presentation of the consensual text: very often 
everyone agree but disagree on the wording. The vote is not on the 
consensus, but on its presentation.

It should also include documentation links everyione may contribute to. So 
every one has access to the full documentation and opponents are indirectly 
presented.

I am obviously biased in favor of this proposition I introduced. But we 
tried to implement it in the "brouhaha" of the WG-R and to develop a 
management tool. Results shown it desserves more thinking. Such a system or 
another is needed as a "trusted governance cultural working method" so 
everyone has a same cybertransparency reflex matching the ICANN bylaws.

Best practices by Joanna Lane and Williams Lovel
My 2 euro cents
Jefsey