[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] Emergency Reminder about the GA's Chair nominationprocedures
This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the
sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
Sorry if I was obscure. What I intended to say was that this should not
be a popularity contest; the NC's job is not to satisfy the lists but to
manage the process of obtaining consensus on policy issues. The fact that
some don't like the way the DNSO is structured, or want to create some
alternative source of DNSO management, or just choose to be loud because
they like the fact that some will respond to them almost no matter what
they say or how they say it -- none of these should deter the DNSO from
doing what it is supposed to do: try to develop consensus of the community
on policy issues, of which the one before it now is gTLDs.
Raúl Echeberría <email@example.com> on 11/25/99 02:39:43 PM
To: "Joe Sims" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>
cc: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr, firstname.lastname@example.org (bcc: Joe
Subject: Re: [council] Emergency Reminder about the GA's Chair
>This does not prescribe
>any particular approach, but it does mean that the "high ground" is
>whatever the NC believes is best suited to carrying out its
>responsibilities to manage the consensus development process -- which may
>or may not coincide with the majority or even the "consensus" of those
>participating on the GA list.
Sorry Joe, but I don't understand very well what you are "exactly" trying
to say. (May be for my limited english)
What's the main point ?