The key to a successful online workshop is for people to give the same time and attention to the work online as they would give to a face-to-face meeting. We would also need the assistance of the GNSO's Staff members to facilitate the workshop. Here's one conception of what an online work session might look like: Pre-Workshop: Each Council member reads the public comments, constituency reports and submitted papers on the Terms of Reference. (Time estimate 4-6 hours) Monday, Day 1: Each Council member drafts his or her own contribution in response to the various items in the Terms of Reference. To the extent they thought appropriate, councilors could work within their constituencies, or divide work among multiple constituencies, to prepare responses. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.) By the end of the first day, council members could either submit their responses to Staff by e-mail or place them directly on a wiki page. Staff would create a web or wiki page for each submission, identifying the Council member or members who worked on a submission. Tuesday, Day 2: Each Council member reads the responses submitted on the previous day and posts questions, comments or responses. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.) At the end of the second day, staff updates the web or wiki page for each submission with the questions and comments. Wednesday, Day 3: Council members read all of the questions, comments, and responses, submitted with respect to both their own original submission and all other submissions. Council members revise their original submissions to clarify or modify their original responses. Council members also answer any questions, either in a modification to their original submission or in a separate Q&A section. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.) Thursday and Friday, Days 4-5: Staff Work Days. Staff reviews all submissions, questions, amendments, etc. posted over the first three days. Staff looks for common threads, shared values, etc. to prepare a report of agreed items. Staff also identifies areas of disagreement. To the extent that items are contested, Staff tries to identify majority and minority positions. By the end of Day 5, Staff posts a paper summarizing the submissions, identifying areas of consensus and majority and minority positions on contested issues. Most importantly, in the posted paper, Staff suggests possible compromises among various positions on contested items in an attempt to narrow any areas of disagreement. Weekend, Days 6-7: Councilors read the Staff paper. Monday, Day 8: Each Council member drafts responses to Staff paper. The primary purpose of the response is to address any inaccuracies in the Staff report and to respond to any proposals for compromise. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.) Tuesday, Day 9: Real-time conference call to review status of work and discuss areas of agreement. (Time estimate: 2 hours) Staff work day following conference call. Wednesday, Day 10: Staff posts final paper, revising it to include corrections submited by Council members and responses to compromise proposals. Thursday, Day 11: Council votes on whether the report accurately summarizes the discussions. If approved, the report is posted on the ICANN and GNSO web pages for public comment. ----------- This sort of online work would take the same level of effort we would give to a three-day work session, with travel, and distribute it over approximately a two-week period. We would each work on our own time and in our own locations, but we would agree to perform the day's designated task within the set 24-hour period. -- Bret
Bret, all, in theory I really like this approach but in reality I just experience that being at my desk at work just isn't the same as being away. Meaning that being physically available for others might very easily, like in my case right now, prevent a attendy to participate on longer sessions due to other commitments that "suddenly" arise. This does not mean that we should give up on the idea of remote participation and online workshops, I just want to point out that sessions with remote participation should be scheduled and prepared as "shorter" working sessions with a defined goal and maybe a recap of the past discussion. Best, tom Am 29.04.2006 schrieb Bret Fausett:
The key to a successful online workshop is for people to give the same time and attention to the work online as they would give to a face-to-face meeting. We would also need the assistance of the GNSO's Staff members to facilitate the workshop.
Here's one conception of what an online work session might look like:
Pre-Workshop: Each Council member reads the public comments, constituency reports and submitted papers on the Terms of Reference. (Time estimate 4-6 hours)
Monday, Day 1: Each Council member drafts his or her own contribution in response to the various items in the Terms of Reference. To the extent they thought appropriate, councilors could work within their constituencies, or divide work among multiple constituencies, to prepare responses. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.) By the end of the first day, council members could either submit their responses to Staff by e-mail or place them directly on a wiki page. Staff would create a web or wiki page for each submission, identifying the Council member or members who worked on a submission.
Tuesday, Day 2: Each Council member reads the responses submitted on the previous day and posts questions, comments or responses. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.) At the end of the second day, staff updates the web or wiki page for each submission with the questions and comments.
Wednesday, Day 3: Council members read all of the questions, comments, and responses, submitted with respect to both their own original submission and all other submissions. Council members revise their original submissions to clarify or modify their original responses. Council members also answer any questions, either in a modification to their original submission or in a separate Q&A section. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.)
Thursday and Friday, Days 4-5: Staff Work Days. Staff reviews all submissions, questions, amendments, etc. posted over the first three days. Staff looks for common threads, shared values, etc. to prepare a report of agreed items. Staff also identifies areas of disagreement. To the extent that items are contested, Staff tries to identify majority and minority positions. By the end of Day 5, Staff posts a paper summarizing the submissions, identifying areas of consensus and majority and minority positions on contested issues. Most importantly, in the posted paper, Staff suggests possible compromises among various positions on contested items in an attempt to narrow any areas of disagreement.
Weekend, Days 6-7: Councilors read the Staff paper.
Monday, Day 8: Each Council member drafts responses to Staff paper. The primary purpose of the response is to address any inaccuracies in the Staff report and to respond to any proposals for compromise. (Time estimate: 3-4 hours per Council member.)
Tuesday, Day 9: Real-time conference call to review status of work and discuss areas of agreement. (Time estimate: 2 hours) Staff work day following conference call.
Wednesday, Day 10: Staff posts final paper, revising it to include corrections submited by Council members and responses to compromise proposals.
Thursday, Day 11: Council votes on whether the report accurately summarizes the discussions. If approved, the report is posted on the ICANN and GNSO web pages for public comment.
-----------
This sort of online work would take the same level of effort we would give to a three-day work session, with travel, and distribute it over approximately a two-week period. We would each work on our own time and in our own locations, but we would agree to perform the day's designated task within the set 24-hour period.
-- Bret
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
participants (2)
-
Bret Fausett -
Thomas Keller