RE: [wg-review] maybe a clarification would be useful

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Marilyn,
Without wishing to add to the burden of mail, I would confirm that my last
post was made with the greatest respect to you and how you chose to spend
your time. We are all in the same boat, having to be selective, but I'm very
pleased to read that you consider Structural Reform along the lines of
Danny's proposal an important topic, as well as Improvements to existing
operations. Can we take it that you'd like WG-Review to make provision for
members to do justice to it's fair consideration? If so, what would you, and
others with heavy commitments elsewhere, consider a reasonable timeframe?
June?
Regards,
Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 1:39 PM
To: 'Joop Teernstra'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-review] maybe a clarification would be useful


I should probably explain my response, given that the general nature has
been shared.  And, I am fine with that, by the way. :-) Thanks, Joop.

I do apologize to the group, but as I said to Joop, I can't spend the time
needed to be completely thoughtful about this issue and I consider it
important. I can't just give it some limited time and do justice to it's
fair consideration.

I am not dismissing it as an idea worth discussion. I just can't
promise/commit to the time needed to be fair to the topic, at this time.

I know some may be critical that I can spend time on other issues which they
might not consider as important, but that's the nature of all of our
realities.

I appreciate being asked initially.

Folks, this is not an excuse, but some days, like all of you, I get over a
hundred emails.  I can't even read all the incoming emails from ICANN lists,
someday, and have to file them until an evening, or a week end later.  So, I
may miss some posts.  If I've missed one which you consider critical, then I
apologize. But I can't promise to respond to all.

Best Regards,

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:09 AM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-review] No interest in a coalition of DN holders
constituencies


For transparency's sake....

Marilyn Cade let me know privately that she has no time to even think about
such a constituency. (!)
No one from either the BIZ or the non-commercial constituencies has shown
any interest in such a grand coalition.

Therefore, perhaps for now we better  forget about the coalition and focus
on the creation of an additional constituency for Individual Domain Name
Owners.




--Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

--
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