Re: [wg-review] A good start

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Jefsey, Rod, et al.,

I would like to remind everyone that the deadline
for submission of this report is April 16.  I am
hoping we will be able to meet such a deadline,
but this will only happen if the discussion
remains tightly and substantively focused on the
issues of DNSO restructuring/reorganization.  I do
not think a second list is necessary.  

To date, we've had two outline proposals
submitted, one by Jefsey Morfin, the other by
Darryl "Dassa" Lynch. Although there has been some
relevant discussion around Jefsey's proposal,
Darryl's remains to be commented upon.  Further,
the volume of the commentary has been pretty
slight, and what was forthcoming was not very
substantive in nature.  I urge those of you who
have proposals to submit, to do so ASAP as I would
like for the WG to meet the April 16 deadline for
submission.  
Pursuant to this, as mentioned by Joanna Lane, on
Friday March 23, the website
www.internetstakeholders.com will be launched, and
will help facilitate the collation of pertinent
commentary and suggestions for the final report. 
The two proposals, along with some of the comments
on Jefsey's outline, can be found at
http://www.atlarge.ca/DNSO.html

I think the four week period from March 17 through
April 16 is sufficient for our present purposes.
In other words, we need to get moving on this
discussion.  Once again, I encourage the members
of this WG to focus their efforts on substantive
proposals and suggestions which will help us to
outline common ground to be included in a final
report.  I would like to submit a draft proposal
to the WG by April 2, which is two weeks away.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Working (Interim) Chair, WG Review 

  

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
**************************
Know thyself!
Get yourname@greekphilosophy.com FREE 
http://www.greekphilosophy.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