Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - correction

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

your most probably right here bret.

the biggest problem is that there are quite a few that  view this as some
sort of a reincarnation of the BWG fueled by ORSC. if it is nothing but
"talking trash" and "how can we gut ICANN" then its going to be tough to
garner enthusiasm for participation from many areas.

if this is a serious effort to "reach out" and enhance communication &
effectiveness and not just a "forum" for some who feel dis-enfranchised or
"denied" then it can be most useful.

there is a serious perception problem (not exactly helped by the images and
previous comments by some of the posting parties) that there is no real
desire to "improve ICANN" only to "dissolve" it. this perception needs to be
addressed.

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>
To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - correction


> Ken Stubbs wrote:
> > it would be quite troublesome if it ended up that 80 -90 % of the voters
> > were members of just 1 or 2 constituancies yet their impressions of the
> > effectiveness of their own constituancy were "blanketly attributed" to
all
> > current constituancies
>
> Ken -- Perhaps you could make a call for the NC to solicit WG
participation
> from their constituency's members. I have a sense that the existing
> constituencies are, at present, underrepresented.
>
>         -- Bret
>

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