Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

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

bret ...

agree strongly with #3 ... but  cant agree with  the #2...

(someone has to make some strong arguments for #2 before I can see any logic
in that statement)

#1 is a legitimate concern but #3 is the reason #1 hasn't been resolved to
date
(too much in-fighting for power in the last 18 months there and an inherent
failure to recognize that people like myself are also "individuals" . just
because I make a living in this business doesn't mean that my individual
perspective cant be acknowledged)

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>
To: "DNSO Review List" <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars


> Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> > If we were to begin to list the problem areas with the DNSO structure
(as
> > Milton has wisely suggested), what would that list look like? Should we
see
> > if we can agree on some particulars?
>
> I'd add to that list the point I made last week about the process not
> allowing or encouraging compromise. The substance of the post is at:
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00116.html
>
> It's a good idea to gather these in one place. I'll add my point to the
list
> below:
>
> > 1. Unrepresented constituents
> > 2. Unrepresentative constituencies
>
> 3. Process does not encourage compromise among parties
>    with competing positions.
>
>         -- 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
>
>

--
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