Re: [council] Review Working Group

[Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>]

on 5/12/00 15:50, Theresa Swinehart at Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com wrote:

> Hi --
> 
> I'm confused to be quite honest about what we're trying to decide here. Can
> someone please clarify? What I understand is that YJ was asked to chair a
> working group per Caroline's motion.
-
Agree
-
> That working group is to address some
> issues related to YJ's document she circulated to the NC list before the LA
> meeting.
-
Agree
-
> 
> The other matter is to have a working group related to the DNSO review,
> where my suggestion was in LA that there be a listserve set up under the GA.
-
Agree also, but not as a separate matter. There is a big confusion about the
meaning of words. I understood WORKING GROUP, even in Caroline motion, as a
full DNSO working group. Now the same wording seems applied to very
different entities, which produces only misunderstanding between us.
-
> Roger agreed with this, then it appeared that the discussion got sidetracked
> to the issue of Caroline's motion, and we never resolved the DNSO working
> group matter.
-
That's the reason why YJ and I introduced that point in the intake
committee. To get this fixed once for all!
-
> 
> If my understanding is correct, then I make the following suggestion for the
> two seperate matters at hand: 1) We immediately get clarification of
> Caroline's motion and the working group attached to it. 2) A listserve under
> the GA is set up for the DNSO review working group, which there is a large
> interest in, and needs to be established. I'd suggest that Roberto, as
> liason to the DNSO review task force, act as chair of that group, and
> liasons with YJ's group on matters that may address the dnso review.
-
I refer (and support) Caroline's initial motion as proposing YJ as chair.
Roberto would be welcome to co-chair with YJ.
-
> 
> We need to move on this, and unless we get clarification on the motion for
> YJ's working group, I'm afraid we'll never get it started, and the DNSO
> review working group will never formally be underway and get the input into.
-
Agenda item #6, as presented by Philip should answer all these points, with
even more details than I was expecting. I guess also that a proposed WG
charter (as could be done by YJ) would provide provisional answers to the
various agenda items.
-
> 
> 
> 


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------