[nc-review] RE: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Caroline,

> 
> The minute I was informed of the confusion (thanks to Ken and 
> Roberto) 

To be honest, I alerted Ken and YJ precisely because I saw this coming, and
I am particularly sensible to avoid whatever can be the cause of further
delays.
OTOH, after talking to Ken, YJ, Theresa, and possibly others, I thought it
was straightened up.


> I sent a note to the Berkman staff regarding what my intended meaning 
> of my motion was.  I was told rather than edit the minutes, they 
> would note all versions of interpretation.  Again, my motion dealt 
> directly with the items in the email I mentioned, I did not intend to 
> intrude upon the work the DNSO Review Committee was doing.
> 
> It is my belief (or at least  my inention) that the working 
> group that 
> is being proposed is separate from my motion.  Therefore, I think it 
> should stand on its own and I wish other NC members outside of those 
> they have been active on the list would contribute their thoughts.  I 
> personally have no problem setting up a list serve where people can 
> submit their comments to the DNSO Review questionnaire before the Dec 
> 19th teleconference.  We need to get input that was not 
> forthcoming in 
> the first round.  What I am nervous about is setting up an 
> official WG 
> before we have all had a chance to fully dicsuss the scope, timeline, 
> etc. 

The problem is that this issue has been floating around for some time now.
The initial comments from constituencies, GA, and whoever, have been given,
and there's no evidence that some more will come under the current
circumstances, therefore to continue this path will be a pure loss of time.

The formation of a WG has been put already to the attention of the NC long
ago, and to delay a decision because, one way or the other, the NC did not
feel that the scope, timeline, etc. has been discussed enough will just give
further impression that (part of) the NC just wants to delay, and possibly
avoid, the issue.

The situation, IMHO, is simple. We have:

1. a wonderful preliminary work from Theresa, with a set of questions that
pretty much have identified the issues;
2. the obvious scope of the WG is to provide answers to these questions, and
therefore the charter should be straightforward;
3. YJ is working to produce realistic timeline and details (whether the
decision in MdR was or was not to give her this task, she is doing it, and I
don't see any reason to throw the work away);
4. extensive discussion on this is already planned for the December NC
teleconference (point 6 in the agenda), we just have to make sure that it is
not postponed/delayed for some reason.

The expectation from the DNSO community is the NC to officially start a WG
on its next meeting (2000-12-19, if I am correct).

Regards
Roberto
P.S. I have put DNSO Review list in copy, as it is relevant to them.



> 
> 
> 
> ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> Originally From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group
> Date: 12/06/2000 01:27am
> 
> 
> Before playing with words with WG formation stuff,
> can someone clarify whether it is possible to change the text of
> the very motion and the relevant part after MdR NC meeting
> among the small group of people without any notice to those
> who can be affected by those sudden minutes changes?
> 
> First try: As soon as NC meeting ends
> Second try: The very next morning
> 
> YJ
> 
> PS. I do understand how terrible Caroline must have gone through
> that's why I have not responded to this kind of meaningless word game
> which will make people just "mentally-exhausted" however, it would
> be much appreciated to describe such a tragedy indirectly.
> 
> I feel sorry for her friend.
> and will wait until Caroline comes back to the list with her account.
> =============================================
> 
> > 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. That working group is to 
> address some
> > issues related to YJ's document she circulated to the NC 
> list before 
> the
> LA
> > meeting.
> >
> > 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.
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Theresa
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On 
> Behalf Of
> > Michael Chicoine
> > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:46 PM
> > To: Dany Vandromme; Peter de Blanc; council@dnso.org
> > Cc: YJ Park; Philip Sheppard
> > Subject: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group
> >
> >
> > I disagree
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> > Originally From: Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>
> > Subject: Re: [council] Review Working Group
> > Date: 12/02/2000 10:24pm
> >
> >
> > on 2/12/00 21:58, Peter de Blanc at pdeblanc@usvi.net wrote:
> >
> > > Fellow NC members:
> > >
> > >
> > > A suggestion was made that the WG submit a "proposed charter" to 
> the
> > NC for
> > > ratification prior to undertaking its work.
> > >
> > > I submit that it would be impossible to even gather ideas and
> > discuss such a
> > > charter, without an operating list for those persons who wish to, 
> or
> > are
> > > willing to participate.
> > >
> > > Given the absence of any clear policy as may have been output by
> > working
> > > group "D", It seems that the only way to move forward with the YJ
> > WG-F is to
> > > turn on the list.
> > >
> > > The WG was voted upon and approved in a public meeting. Any delays
> > could
> > > provoke a negative public reaction.
> > >
> > > Does anyone on the council disagree with the necessity of 
> activating
> > the
> > > list now?
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > -
> > I fully agree with the request to activate the list as soon as
> > possible, and
> > certainly before the NC meeting of December.
> > Dany
> > -
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> 
>