Re: [wg-review] charter

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Philip,
On 13:57 04/01/01, Philip Sheppard said:
>In reply to Jefsey and others,

I certainly accept I was tough on you. You certainly guessed the texte of 
your first mail would be flamed, so I suppose you made it on purpose to 
restart the discussion the way you anted to impose. Accepted trick.

>please do not interpret my interventions to date as anything more than
>contributions to the debate.

IMHO the debate is the debate of this WG-Review, the way it wants it.  This 
is by itself an input for the NC, the NC has no reason to interfere with.

>All I did was explain what the NC decision was
>that created this WG. If you prefer to stay in the dark in future that is
>fine but I believe that such information is important.

IMHO again, this only demonstrates one of the big flaws of the NC in trying 
to reach a consensus. This is its inability to communicate:
- BoD says "I do no hear anything constructive from you"
- 15 days after the begining of a WG-Review one individual from the NC 
joins the group an says "I may be going to be the next NC Chair so word is 
light and everything which has been said here by NC Members is obsolete"
- even among NC members (and some respectable and active Members are here) 
the system is such they do not even succeed in knowing whih document they 
want to get a consensus on. Makes it complex to agree when you don't know 
about what you want to agree >:-) !

Question to add to the questionaire: is light coming from NC, from 
constiuencies, from real problems... Are we staying in the dark or is the 
NC blundering in the night when NC members disagree?

>If you ask any member of the NC if they believe the system is perfect right
>now, the answer would be a clear no. What the NC is trying to do,
>recognising the constraints of the system we have inherited,

We may all refuse to inherit something. Hapilly the BoD is removing a part 
of the Dennis Jenning's heritage through the @large Study Group. IMHO we 
should refuse the NC inheritage. No big deal, just to propose a 
modification in the bylaws, you guies to quit and to get a better Consilium 
formula. I explained many times the way this should (and most probably 
shall) work as there is hardly another solution which works in the real 
world.

>is to manage a process that will result in improvement in the short-term.

I suggest a very simple achievable change to enlight the discussion here:

1. every NC member participates to the debate as a WG-Review Member. Wold 
be polite of hem. Actually, all of them should have welcomed us the very 
first day, questionnaire in hand. We are low grade benevolant people they 
call upon. I am sure the debat would gain in efficiency. Is a "meet the 
pepole" too undemocratic? Several did it.

2. Every post of an NC Member should be signed wiht a position and 
constituency. We are not here in an open debate, but in a Working Group. 
When someone talks, he talks on behalf of his constituency. When Mr. Peter 
de Blanc proposes a pay/seat system, I understand that the ccTLD Co-Chair, 
representing the ccTLDs at the NC, is making a real proposition supported 
by his constituency. Otherwise we are in full brain storming cession, not 
in a working group and we will never reach a consensus on anything.

>Focusing on achievable change should be the preferred option.

OK. I have no reason no reason not to believe you. I said the change 
(closing the NC and adopt a new NC formula) I wanted. Many other did. Would 
it be really unconstructive to ask you:  what is the change (no s in your 
sentence) you propose yourself?

Jefsey





>Philip

--
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