RE: [Clarification] Re: [wg-review] [Agenda] Issues List - 4

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

I'll second or maybe it's third that...is this the start of consensus?
Cindy Merry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Phil King
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 5:49 PM
To: Jefsey Morfin; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [Clarification] Re: [wg-review] [Agenda] Issues List - 4

While I cannot speak to the accuracy of reports derived from some sources,
I
can say that jefsey does reflect 'my' confusion accurately.
<yofelipe> tries to keep 'dumb' comments to minimum and learn maximum when
with the 'big boys & girls'

-------------------

On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 02:03:32 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>  Dear Elisabeth,
>  Welcome on this WG-Review: another NC Member joining the WG-Review
>  which is supposed to report to the NC. Soon the WG-Review will be an
>  extended NC so we will by-pass the Task Force but we will gain delays:
>  we will report together to the BoD. Time galore!
>
>  On 19:46 06/01/01, Elisabeth Porteneuve said:
>  >Dear Colleagues,
>  >
>  >Let me clarify some innaccurate items in the long message attached
>  >below.
>
>  I understand the only "inaccurate item" is that you are not the Scribe.
>
>  I never said you were, I talked about your report; as it was not signed
and
>  I suppose that as the NC Secretary - ie. legally responsible - you do as
>  every elect Secretary Officer in any association and corporation: you
>  review the minutes of the meetings which are published by your office.
>  No offense was meant. To the countrary the acknowledgement of your
>  office and responsibility. (This report show you stil assume them until
>  un replacement has been found).
>
>  >First of all, I did not drafted the minutes from the Names Council
>  >held on 19 December -- Maca Jamin was our Scribe, and she desserves
>  >our gratitude to do her work very well.
>  >Since last October when I get elected to the Names Council by
>  >the ccTLD Constituency I do not take minutes by myself, to avoid any
>  >possible conflict of interest.
>
>  Now we know that Mrs. Jamin has kindly played the role of Scribe, we
>  certainly join you in thanking her for her help. Hi, Maca: happy new
year!
>
>  >Secondly, the NC minutes report all the long debate about the DNSO
Review,
>  >but end with the DECISION D4, submitted to the NC vote, and adopted.
>  >Therefore this DECISION stands as the basis for the WG-Review.
>  >Please focus on that topics, as the timeline is indeed very short.
>
>  I do not see were there may be any "inaccuracy" here. This WG-Review
>  is in operation since 12/20/2000. As documented Mrs. YJ Park Chairs it
>  to general satisfaction of the Members.  She is our interface with the
NC.
>  The DNSO/Secretariat report of the 12/19 meeting has been only
>  published today (and not sent to this WG-Review which includes @large
>  members not on dnso-annouce).
>
>  It gives some indications and calls for clarifications about the
requests
of
>  Mr. Philip Sheppard to change the direction of this WG-Review in
apparent
>  disagreement with our WG-Review Chair. As Members we are only
>  interested in our Chair. But since NC Chair, NC Coordination with
>  our Chair, NC Secretary and NC Members are themselves participating as
>  any other Members of this WG-Review and that we are told to be in the
>  "dark' if we proceed as initiated by our Chair, you may understand we
are
>  confused.
>
>  >Some URLs relevant to the DNSO Review process are recapitulated below.
>
>  I am sorry, but we are not competent to decide how they fit together.
This
>  is the task of our Chair and of Mr. Philip Sheppard coordinating
directly
>  with her outside of this forum.
>
>  >There is a lot of substantial messages sent to this list which I have
>  >been browsing today, I will send my comments in a separate message.
>
>  We will certainly be interested in reading them. But please understand
>  that the confusion entertained by all these different positions from the
NC
>  is an important element for us to understand why the DNSO is not
>  efficient under the current NC formula.
>
>
>  Dear Elsabeth, I certainly accept that the word "inaccurate" was
probably
a
>  typo as:
>
>  1. you did not indicate anything inaccurate
>  2. my memo is only the accurate description of the confusion we are in
as
>       WG-Reviw goodwill Members and a request for clarification.
>
>  All the best to you.
>  Jefsey
>
>
>  --
>  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
>


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/


--
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