Re: [wg-review] Third Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 08:25 24/01/01 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>To be blunt, YJ, you have from the beginning ignored the terms of
>reference that were approved for this WG, 

To be blunt, Kent, YJ has tried her best to get more workable terms of
reference approved and has tried admirably to give this WG any meaning
achievable under the circumstances.

It is the NC that stands exposed. Taking 5 months to approve the WG and
then giving it about 19 days, during which it had to elect a Chair as well.
(and agree on election procedures).


>and instead you have
>steadfastly followed your own agenda.  The results have been completely
>predictable, and the WG (which *could* have been a means of collecting a
>broad spectrum of input) has dwindled to a narrow group with a 
>relatively cohesive set of ideas.  Now, of course, that narrow group 
>can find its own consensus, but at the same time, the WG has lost any 
>claim of broad representation.
>

Why? You are still here.  Ken Stubs and NC members were there. You have
have submitted a personal report. It will be read.

It was the too short term that kept many from participating over the holidays.
Under the terms that gave the group until 15th January, the WG would have
lost any claim of being  meaningful, both in terms of completed discussions
and of conclusions about the non-posting (but voting)  members' opinions.

Now we are at least achieving that.


"Cyberspace is the latest American frontier. As this and other
societies make ever deeper forays into it, the proposition that
ownership of this frontier resides first with the people is central
to achieving its true potential."---Esther Dyson
--
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