[council] DNSO review version 3.0 comment
Hello Review TF members,
I do have a concern in "representation and procedures within the
in version 3.0. That specific paragraph describes as follows:
"Structural ... 'the position of a constituency' as opposed to statements
some members of a constituency on behalf of the constituency, without
given opportunity for input."
My first concern is the footnote quoted regarding this matter are all about
non-commercial constituency only even though we do have this problem
almost in every constituency at certain level.
For instance, it turns out the constituency positions such as IPC in version
3.0 is not really the constituency position at all as we heard from Axel,
one of Review TF member from IPC. [See below attachment]
Therefore, we do also need to hear from ISPC regarding its confirmation
how such a position could be developed in such a short time period even
before the substantial DNSO review process was on track in October or so.
And their model can be used as educational case for the other constituencies
to follow to build up its consensus easily and timely.
However, we DNSO review TF needs to admit it has been almost
impossible for the constituency to build up the consensus in general
due to lack of procedures in place yet rather than nicely put it as the
From: "aus der Muhlen, Axel" <Axel_ausderMuhlen@mpaa.org>
To: "'Theresa Swinehart'" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>;
<CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; "aus der Muhlen, Axel"
Cc: "Louis Touton" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Philip Sheppard"
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:41 AM
Subject: RE: Questions for completion of the revised dnso review report
> IPC Constituency:
> 1) are IPC comments from some members of the IPC, or specifically from the
> IPC constituency? Please clarify so we can clarify in the report.
> The IPC comments were made by individual members of the IPC.
> Let me know if you have any further questions.
[End of Attachment]