RE: [council] Objection

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Danny, and other BC members 

The .org position is posted for comments by the Business Constituency before
becoming a final position of the BC.

Danny, I appreciate that you want to provide your input, and highly
recommend that you do so, following the BC process.

As a member of the business constituency, your individual comments and those
of other BC members should be sent directly to the BC Secretariat, who will
compile comments from all members of the BC and edits which are generally
agreed to by the membership will be used to revise the draft position.  The
BC tries to reach consensus wherever possible across it's members.  In
practice, we have tried to maintain a practice of reaching general agreement
of the majority of the members. 

I strongly recommend that you submit your comments and input regarding the
proposed position.  That way, you will ensure that your input is heard. 

Note that there is a 10 day period for the BC members to submit comments.
This is a standing BC practice. 

When people wear multiple hats, as you do, Danny, it is important to
remember which one you are wearing, when you are working in a particular
group.

In the Business Constituency, you are a member. Please follow the process of
submitting your comments to the BC Secretariat, so that, along with other
comments, your input can be taken before the draft position is finalized.

Many of the associations who are members of the BC also represent SME's;
perhaps you have forgotten that?

When you have a question about BC practices, I suggest that you contact one
of the representatives to see if we can be of assistance in understanding
and assisting with your question, issue, or concern.  It might be worth a
try to start with that approach.

:-)

Marilyn Cade  



-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 11:34 AM
To: council@dnso.org
Cc: mueller@syr.edu
Subject: [council] Objection


On behalf of the GA (which awaits the election of its representative to the 
.org Task Force) and as a member of the BC, I most strenuously object to the

comments put forth on the NC-ORG list by Grant Forsythe that purports to be 
the input of the BC.   

This document  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/doc00001.doc
is described on the BC website as:

"Discussion paper on dot org now in circulation:
The paper, authored by Philip Sheppard, was submitted to the membership for 
discussion on 8 August.  The paper will be published as a BC Position on 21 
August if there is no opposition, ie, ten working days."

This "input" is not an approved constituency position and was submitted to 
the NC list well in advance of approval by the BC membership (most of us not

even aware of the existence of this document as notification has not been 
provided to all BC members).  This document did not exist on the former BC 
website, and the new BC website has only been operational for one day, 
thereby invalidating the timeline for comment cited above.   

If the website offered an input field that allowed for comments to be made 
and archived, then we might agree that a consensus of sorts is emerging.  In

the absence of any transparency, however, this document cannot be endorsed
as 
the input of the BC;  it is no more than the personal comments of Phil 
Sheppard forwarded by Grant Forsythe. 

Perhaps Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Forsythe would care to inform this body as to 
which SMEs were consulted regarding this  "substantive policy work item".   
Putting foward that which purports to be a constituency position paper on 
.org without outreach to the small and medium sized businesses that are 
allegedly a part of the BC is worse than disingenuous, it is fraud.

Unless, like Mr. Lynn, the BC chooses to declare a discussion paper to be 
approved policy without the benefit of true constituency input, this
document 
should be withdrawn.