RE: [wg-review] 4,5,6, WGs, Standardized Procedures & Education

["McMeikan, Andrew" <andrew.mcmeikan@mitswa.com.au>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary
Content-Type: text/plain

What about constituencies being "self forming" ? 

There are over 200 members of the IDNO, and even allowing that only 60 odd
are active on the list (rumors of its demise greatly exaggerated), it is at
least already in existence as a group of people.

Perhaps more should be made aware of it?  Certainly there are many people
within that would be keen to follow any structuring advice that would give
it a better voice/recognition.

The IDNO, like any other group especially diverse individuals has its
moments of chaos but it is better to self form and get recognition than to
be mandated into existence, because its embarrassing that one has not been
recognized yet!

	cya,	Andrew...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Greg Burton [SMTP:sidna@feedwriter.com]
> Sent:	Friday, February 16, 2001 10:21 AM
> To:	Eric Dierker
> Cc:	review
> Subject:	Re: [wg-review] 4,5,6, WGs, Standardized Procedures &
> Education
> 
> At 03:33 PM 2/15/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >"to establish a study to identify specific core issues that need to be
> >addressed in order to determine if and how to establish an individual
> >domain name holders constituency."
> >
> >This working group and the review task force basically concluded that a
> >IDNH's constituency should be formed.
> 
> The figures are consistently over 75% in favor of it (not counting 
> abstentions) at two physical GA meetings (Yokohama and Marina Del Rey) and
> 
> in three polls done in the WG here. The original plan, as far as I can
> tell 
> from the tapes of Yokohama, was for the task force and wg to combine the 
> question of an individual constituency and DNSO review.
> 
> In other words, seven months ago the BoD was told that the review task 
> force was going to do what it's now recommending be done by someone else, 
> later.
> 
> In Marina Del Rey the motion was made and passed during the GA meeting to 
> create a WG in order to create that constituency. A motion was made and 
> passed here to do the same thing. Nothing has happened, or I now believe 
> will happen, until Melbourne at the earliest, and only if the BoD does 
> something directly. Up until yesterday, I still had some hope that the NC 
> would create the WG to deal with the issue, as they promised the Board in 
> Yokohama. I no longer believe that they will, despite the best wishes and 
> efforts for that outcome by some of the NC members.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> sidna@feedwriter.com
> 
> --
> 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

--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary
Content-Type: text/plain;
	name="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt"


------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying or other 
use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If 
you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete 
the material from your system. Logica is not responsible for any
changes made to the material other than those made by Logica or for
the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material. 


--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary--
--
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