<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: Documentation request
Ken,
Pardon me if I sounded at all pessimistic. I do believe that you can
spearhead this effort in the Council, and only seek to remind you of the
explicit language of the Business Plan to which the Council has committed
itself:
The original language stated the following:
5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
constituency.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00003.doc
This language was then modified by Erica:
5.4 New Constituencies: Review and clarify process for creation of new
constituencies
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00004.doc
The change in wording was acceptable to your Chair:
"Erica, thanks for your insight. I support both your changes. Philip."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/msg00016.html
The Business Plan was then ratified at the Melbourne session.
As the Council has already made the decision to "clarify the process", we are
waiting for the Council to get its job done.
Quoting Erica: "I believe it is more important for us to focus on the
process issue than on the specific question of whether an Individual
Constituency should be established. Once the process is clarified, then it
is clear what hoops any group (including those who wish to establish an
individuals constituency) will have to jump thru in order to get recognition."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/msg00015.html
If you can facilitate this "clarification", we will offer you all necessary
support.
--
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
>>>
|