Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences
personally, i feel that roberto's comments here are quite logical and make
good sense to me
----- Original Message -----
From: Roberto Gaetano <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <Harald@Alvestrand.no>; <email@example.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC
> >when I asked to join WG-B and WG-C, I quoted my ACM membership as proof
> >that I was a relevant member (since ACM was a member of NCDNHC).
> >This may have been totally unneccessary; I'd be happy if that was the
> I am insisting on this because I believe that we have to make sure that
> there is consensus on this.
> When the early WGs were established, the GA was the union (in the
> algebrical, not political sense) of all people that have participated in
> process, and was in the process of being better identified (as was the
> DNSO, BTW).
> Now we have a procedure by which every interested individual can join the
> by subscribing. Moreover, we have a voting registry, that is open.
> I am assuming that every WG will be open to (at least) all individuals
> are subscribed to the GA (list or registry). Since this was not existing
> that time, it was maybe necessary to "prove" participation to a
> constituency, but it will be meaningless now.
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html