Re: [council] clarification of yesterdeays action regarding motion made by Caroline

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I agree that we need clarification on the nature of the WG to be headed by YJ.  I have not so far received any communication by email from YJ on this matter so I am not clear what the Chair is referring to in the email below.

However ....

I abstained from the vote appointing YJ as chair of ????because I was not clear what she was being asked to do.  My impression  - but that is all it is - was that the NC agreed that YJ was to head up a group to provide some advice to the DNSO review TF (headed by Therese) relating some how (I am not cler how) to the composition NC Workig groups, committees and/or task forces.

 

What is clear to me, is that the NC did not provide any clear terms of reference for whatever group it was that YJ is to chair.  I do not believe that we can resolve this issue by reference to the transcript (since this has not been agreed).  Rather, we must now work together to clarify and determine the terms of reference for the group to be chaired by YJ.

 

Since Caroline proposed th motion to apoint YJ as chair, I suggest Caroline propose terms of reference for YJ for consideration and endorsement by the NC.  Anybody else could also propose terms of reference.  However, the main point here is that the NC needs to consider and approve terms of reference for the group to be chaired by YJ.

 

erica

 

 

riginal Message -----

From: Ken Stubbs

To: names council

Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:25 AM

Subject: [council] clarification of yesterdeays action regarding motion made by Caroline

fellow council members

 

we are in need of a clarification by the names council of the action taken yesterday regarding the formation of a working group to be headed by yj.

 

i am formally asking that yj please elaborate her position to the council as to her personal understanding of the scope of the working group we approved yesterday.

 

i am also requesting that a clear mandate be formulated as to  exactly what the scope of the working group that was approved yesterday was to be and am requesting a clarification of the specific motion made by caroline and the understanding by each member of the council .

 

we need to clear this up as quickly as possible.

 

 

 

i am now presenting my personal impressions below.:

 

discussions with some of the members of the council after the meeting last night  (including caroline chicoine, who made the motion) indicate that  the motion was made with the intention of setting up a working group to review the dnso review concerns expressed by yj in her correspondence to the council and the results of this working group be presented to the council for council  review and inclusion in the dnso committee review report to be submitted to the board.

 

to the best of my knowledge there was never any indication that the working group proposed was to replace the dnso review committee. i cannot locate in the webcast record nor in the scribes minutes any mention of DISBANDING  the review committee and replacing it with the working group (only that a working group to address the dnso review was to be formed) there was no clear indication of the scope of the group in the recorded webcast and no indication in the recorded webcast that this group was to "replace the dnso committee".

 

we need to clarify this as soon as possible in order to avoid any conflicts. 

 

i am quite comfortable with the establishment of this working group by personally do not recall nor can i see in the webcast any comments or resolution by the council that this working group was to replace the current dnso committee headed by theresa .

 

please, as soon as possible, let us get this clarified before this becomes a serious issue.

 

if necessary, we can arrange a teleconference to clarify but i am asking for assistance and direction in this matter from ALL OF YOU.

 

in order to avoid any conflicts in this area i am asking for a volunteer to mediate this problem and am personally standing aside with respect to any further action on this specific issue. there are 18 other good people who can "work this specif issue out" and whatever you all decide here acceptable with me

 

ken stubbs