Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 8/5/01 9:02 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com at DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> I wish to thank the Secretariat for making public the Review Task Force
> mailing list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/
> 
> This "first" message was posted to it two days ago by Philip Sheppard:
> 
> 1. Working groups. Lead: Philip.
> - "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines".
> I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment yet.
> Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will construe
> silence as consent. Deadline 15 August. ACTION ALL PLEASE.
> 
> 2. Web-based fora as alternatives to lists. Lead Peter.  We are evaluating a
> site. Comments later.

Peter,
Please keep the GA informed of any proposed changes with respect to normal
Task Force procedures. This may be concern some members. Thank you.

> 
> 3. GA Chair  Lead Philip
> I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA nominations,
> 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC rules
> of procedure.
> I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view.
> Deadline August 15. ACTION all.

Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the GA's,
and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm afraid.
Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its own Chair
was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the Chairmanship
of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the last
Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded and
voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the possible
exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the greatest
respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid consensus
building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during the
last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.

It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is counterproductive and
causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision has
already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited Task
Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an over is
over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch simply because
he is captain of the team.

Regards,
Joanna 

> 
> 4. Constituency formation / individuals constituency Lead Axel
> I propose we FIRST draft criteria for ANY new constituency including need,
> uniqueness, potential contribution and representativeness.
> Axel - please advise progress and post to the virtual workroom. Deadline
> August 15.
> 
> 5. Language diversity/ translation of DNSO papers Lead Milton
> To be practical here (from the cost perspective) I believe we should look at
> use of web based auto translators. Has an evaluation been done of these by a
> university language school ? Surely yes? Milton - please advise progress
> and/or post a document to the virtual workroom. Deadline August 15.
> 
> 6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
> Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes of
> NC consultation activities.
> Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the word
> consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for DNSO
> groups. This seems like a good way forward. Milton - please advise progress
> or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.
> 
> --------
> Please note:  the "virtual workroom" is at <A
> HREF="http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/">http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/
> </A>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html