RE: [wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review, The DNSO Constituencies. - Dassa.

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
|>Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:10 AM
|>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review, The DNSO Constituencies. - Dassa.
|>
|>I strongly disagree.  I think Dassa's report should be sent 
|>along by Dassa and not necessarily the WG.

Although I will most likely be making a personal submission, I would have hoped that as a Working Group, if any of the ideas I put forward are thought worthy, that we would be able to discuss them and come up with a revised document that could be submitted by the WG-Review.  As a document the group had developed.  I disagree with documents going direct from an individual and given endorsement actually, unless they have been discussed and participants agree on the contents.  

|>Remember, the clear majority in the WG voted *against* constituencies 
|>allltogether, any other comments are *subsidiary*
|>and should be treated as such.  

I disagree with this clear majority declaration.  Given the limited numbers of participants in the polls I feel it would be highly questionable to attribute any clearly defined outcomes from the results.

|>If dassa wishes to submit his 
|>suggestion as an indicidual, that's his prerogative, but 
|>the WG should not endorse it.

Certainly not unless the majority agree with the revised contents that the WG-Review hopefully will be able to develop if they see fit.  Any submission I make as an individual may contain other strategies.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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