Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Dear Sotiris,
>
> Your initial draft proposal began with the following sentences in the
> preface:  "This document is not intended to reflect a set of consensus-based
> policy recommendations founded on unanimous compromise between all active
> participants within the WG-Review.  Nor does it reflect a consensus defined
> in terms of a 2/3 formulation based on the number of participants in a
> vote."
> <snip>
> I agreed with your initial assessment that this report was not a consensus
> formulation, and consider your decision to substantially amend the preface,
> based solely upon one comment to "not start off with a negative", as
> inconsistent with the conclusion you had earlier reached.  As such, I must
> regard the claim made in your most recent post, that you have, "in fact,
> uncovered a consensus" to be sufficiently open to debate.

All,

Please consider this post:

"Topic: Constituencies March 2001; Editor: Danny Younger INTRODUCTION While an
editor's synopsis has been provided at the end of this report, anyone reading
the chronicle of the Review Working Group's comments on constituencies cannot
fail to arrive at certain self-evident conclusions, namely: the DNSO is deemed
by all to be a dysfunctional body, and that necessary changes will require
either the abolition of the current constituency structure or the formation of
additional constituencies in order to resolve the issue of appropriate
representation." [emphasis added]

Now, Danny, I ask you, what has happened between the time you wrote the above to
the present, which leads you to want to debate with me over the accuracy of my
assessment?  Seems to me you already admitted what I mention in my proposal.
Please, in the interest of consistency, explain your current abnegation.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Working Chair, WG Review

--
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