<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Constituency Definitions
Joop, Joe, and all.
>At 18:31 13/09/00 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>
>>Perhaps we need to form a WG to flesh out the matter officially.
>>
>
>We surely do. This is why the GA in Yokohama asked the NC to authorize
such
>a WG. The GA does not have the power to create WG's.
>
>Any news about its progress, Roberto?
>
I recently complained about the lack of enthusiasm ;>) in the Task
Force. Maybe the limited number of contributions lately was due to the
Labour Day Weekend in the US - it seems that YJ an myself are the most
active.
I also reported that the debate is alive and well in GA + NonCom lists,
and proposed to start the WG ASAP, so that all can participate in a
common forum.
Anyway, the agreement is that I (and YJ) produce a summary of the
discussion on the subject in the next days. I will report the interest
in the GA, the focus on the establishment of an Individual DN
Constituency, and with your permission I will not mention the fight over
IDNO :<(.
I assume that we still have consensus in the GA on the formation of the
WG, so I will push for this.
Regards
Roberto
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|