Re: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group

[Michael Chicoine <mchicoine@pol.net>]

The minute I was informed of the confusion (thanks to Ken and Roberto) 
I sent a note to the Berkman staff regarding what my intended meaning 
of my motion was.  I was told rather than edit the minutes, they 
would note all versions of interpretation.  Again, my motion dealt 
directly with the items in the email I mentioned, I did not intend to 
intrude upon the work the DNSO Review Committee was doing.

It is my belief (or at least  my inention) that the working group that 
is being proposed is separate from my motion.  Therefore, I think it 
should stand on its own and I wish other NC members outside of those 
they have been active on the list would contribute their thoughts.  I 
personally have no problem setting up a list serve where people can 
submit their comments to the DNSO Review questionnaire before the Dec 
19th teleconference.  We need to get input that was not forthcoming in 
the first round.  What I am nervous about is setting up an official WG 
before we have all had a chance to fully dicsuss the scope, timeline, 
etc. 



------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
Originally From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group
Date: 12/06/2000 01:27am


Before playing with words with WG formation stuff,
can someone clarify whether it is possible to change the text of
the very motion and the relevant part after MdR NC meeting
among the small group of people without any notice to those
who can be affected by those sudden minutes changes?

First try: As soon as NC meeting ends
Second try: The very next morning

YJ

PS. I do understand how terrible Caroline must have gone through
that's why I have not responded to this kind of meaningless word game
which will make people just "mentally-exhausted" however, it would
be much appreciated to describe such a tragedy indirectly.

I feel sorry for her friend.
and will wait until Caroline comes back to the list with her account.
=============================================

> I'm confused to be quite honest about what we're trying to decide 
here.
Can
> someone please clarify? What I understand is that YJ was asked to 
chair a
> working group per Caroline's motion. That working group is to 
address some
> issues related to YJ's document she circulated to the NC list before 
the
LA
> meeting.
>
> The other matter is to have a working group related to the DNSO 
review,
> where my suggestion was in LA that there be a listserve set up under 
the
GA.
> Roger agreed with this, then it appeared that the discussion got
sidetracked
> to the issue of Caroline's motion, and we never resolved the DNSO 
working
> group matter.
>
> If my understanding is correct, then I make the following suggestion 
for
the
> two seperate matters at hand: 1) We immediately get clarification of
> Caroline's motion and the working group attached to it. 2) A 
listserve
under
> the GA is set up for the DNSO review working group, which there is a 
large
> interest in, and needs to be established. I'd suggest that Roberto, 
as
> liason to the DNSO review task force, act as chair of that group, 
and
> liasons with YJ's group on matters that may address the dnso review.
>
> We need to move on this, and unless we get clarification on the 
motion for
> YJ's working group, I'm afraid we'll never get it started, and the 
DNSO
> review working group will never formally be underway and get the 
input
into.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theresa
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On 
Behalf Of
> Michael Chicoine
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:46 PM
> To: Dany Vandromme; Peter de Blanc; council@dnso.org
> Cc: YJ Park; Philip Sheppard
> Subject: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group
>
>
> I disagree
>
>
>
> ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> Originally From: Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>
> Subject: Re: [council] Review Working Group
> Date: 12/02/2000 10:24pm
>
>
> on 2/12/00 21:58, Peter de Blanc at pdeblanc@usvi.net wrote:
>
> > Fellow NC members:
> >
> >
> > A suggestion was made that the WG submit a "proposed charter" to 
the
> NC for
> > ratification prior to undertaking its work.
> >
> > I submit that it would be impossible to even gather ideas and
> discuss such a
> > charter, without an operating list for those persons who wish to, 
or
> are
> > willing to participate.
> >
> > Given the absence of any clear policy as may have been output by
> working
> > group "D", It seems that the only way to move forward with the YJ
> WG-F is to
> > turn on the list.
> >
> > The WG was voted upon and approved in a public meeting. Any delays
> could
> > provoke a negative public reaction.
> >
> > Does anyone on the council disagree with the necessity of 
activating
> the
> > list now?
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> -
> I fully agree with the request to activate the list as soon as
> possible, and
> certainly before the NC meeting of December.
> Dany
> -
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER
>
>                 Reseau National de Telecommunications
>          pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
>
>                                   |  ENSAM
> Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
> Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
> E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>