RE: [wg-review] A good start

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

To all:

What Rod Dixon says seem quite reasonable to me.
There are two separate issues:

1) how to tackle the present existing situation
2) how to restructure from experience

However creating two lists would probably create confusion.
May be could we focus on immediate propositions until
April 15th (keeping in mnd we try to propose things in
line with what we feel to be a consensus for the future),
and after Aprils 15th we work on a complete review.

I feel this would be in accordance with this WG-Review
charter and fully justify it to continue working (and
probably aggregate new kind of interests and new
people).

Just a suggestion.
Jefsey






On 05:43 19/03/01, Rod Dixon said:
>Should we have a sub-group work on the restructure of the entire DNSO? It
>may be confusing to some if comments on both proposals are posted during
>the same period. Frankly, April 16th is hardly enough time for the first
>proposal. (BTW, I am following the discussion as best I can while I am in
>Hong Kong. Please excuse the delay in my responding to some posts.)
>
>Rod
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > I don't support blowing up the existing constituency model, just because
> > there are issues or concerns by some.  In fact, the DNSO is a "young"
> > organization, and needs time to mature and change, as needed, to represent
> > the full set of stakeholders.
> >
> > My goal is to be part of constructive change.
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: babybows.com [mailto:webmaster@babybows.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:21 PM
> > To: wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: [wg-review] A good start
> >
> >
> > Jefsey Morfin has presented a reasonably well-defined structural model that
> > incorporates the views of many in this Working Group that supported the
> > abolition of the Constituency model, myself included.  I am confident that
> > in the time allowed, it will be possible to make whatever necessary
> > refinements are required by this model to ensure adequate representational
> > mechanisms.
> >
> > As part of this working group will now focus on this first proposal, it 
> will
> > become increasingly important for advocates of the
> > expanded/more-representative Constituency model to present their case as
> > well, so that we may all ultimately weigh the relative merits of each
> > clearly-defined and well-articulated proposal.
> >
> > I remind you, in the end, we will need consensus.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>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