Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

[kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)]

your comment is well taken here. it would not be appropriate for me to
involve myself in the self-formation process, yet i can still express my
concern to those involved in same and receive assurances that, as an
individual, i would be welcome to participate in the future and make my
views known

i will say it again... frankly, i feel that an individual constituancy is a
good idea and have expressed that opinion on numerous occasions. i only am
concerned that the constituancy is "inclusive enough" and have viewed over
the last 18 months a continual strife in the ga to accomplish this
"inclusiveness" goal. as you are aware, i have no vote in the acceptance of
any constituancy application (as this is presented directly to the board)
but i would be happy to personally endorse an application which is
"inclusive"

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>
Cc: "J J Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars


> Ken, can you clarify something?
>
> At 10:32 AM 1/3/01, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> >c. i fully acknowledge my principal activity and anyone i interact with
> >certainly has the opportunity to evaluate my comments and participation
in
> >light of my open disclosure.
> >this should not preclude my participation in the individual constituancy.
>
> and:
>
> "it would seem more appropriate to me if this self-formation process was
> managed and facilitated by the parties who are seeking constituancy status
> rather than members of other constituancies......."
>
> Could you reconcile those statements for me, please?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>

--
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