[ga] Re: Constituency Formation & Individuals Constituency

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Danny Younger wrote:
>
>1.  Will existing constituencies be held to the same criteria as any new
>constituency?

Are you asking my opinion?
It does not seem to be the orientation of the Task Force to revise 
completely the Constituency mechanism and structure: this has been discussed 
already at length in different fora, and the conclusion seems to be that the 
NC cannot reform itself so radically without external intervention (from the 
Board, for instance). Therefore I would exclude that any of the existing 
Constituencies will be questioned to the point of elimination, even if it 
could not meet one or more of the criteria for new entry.
The reverse may make more sense: to set the criteria in a way that the 
existing constituencies fulfill them.


>
>2.  You have spoken of "tight deadlines", but have also mentioned having a
>"sound document for MdR 2001".  As the Review Working Group was given only 
>a
>3-week timeline to review the entirety of the DNSO, why does this Task 
>Force
>require 3 months just to establish criteria?  Why can't you be finished by
>Montevideo?  Who is delaying your progress?

The "sound document for MdR 2001" that I was referring to is the proposal 
for a new Constituency for Individuals/Registrant, not the output of the 
Task Force.


>
>3.  Why does this Review Task Force continue to work in secret?  What
>happened to the concept of "open and transparent"?     It does not take 
>over
>a month to evaluate a web-based forum.   If you are using the "virtual
>workroom" without difficulty, then open it up so that we may all take note 
>of
>the conversations (which should be publicly archived).

The usage of a Web-based forum is experimental, and is exactly one of the 
points that are being addressed. In other words, one of the items on the 
agenda of the Task Force is "should a web-based forum be used instead of the 
mailing list".
This said, the "secrecy" does not depend on the tool used (a closed and not 
archived mailing list would have the same "secrecy"), and without any doubt 
the log of the contributions could be easily publicly archived with little 
extra effort. In fact, it could be even an automatic process.

>
>Perhaps you may recall this quote from Philip Sheppard:  "It is understood
>that the structure of
>participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO 
>working
>groups!"
>
>We are stilling waiting for this full participation.

From what I saw on the GA list, the participation of the members on the 
issues under debate by the Task Force is very low indeed, and this has very 
little to do with the attitude of the NC in running this Task Force, but 
maybe with the sense of boredom in discussing the same things over again 
without reaching any decision.

What I would expect from the GA is rather an outcry on "let's get some 
points nailed down and decided upon" rather than "let's rediscuss the 
openness". But this is a matter of personal taste. You are the Chairman, and 
please orient the discussion on the GA list on whatever item you do see fit 
for contribution to the Task Force. I, as representative of the GA to the 
Task Force will assure that the decisions, consensus, concerns, proposals, 
and whatever will come form the GA will be reported to the Task Force 
whether or not it fits my personal opinion.


>
>When does this Task Force intend to be in compliance with the Bylaws?   
>Allow
>me to point out the relevant portion:  "The Corporation and its subordinate
>entities shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
>transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure 
>fairness
>."
>
>Where is the "transparency" in a website that is not viewable by the 
>public?
>
>Please advise your fellow Task Force members that if this forum is not 
>opened
>to public purview with all due speed, and that if action is not taken to
>allow for the full participation of the General Assembly, then a formal
>"reconsideration and review request" will be submitted to the Board.
>
>The NC is in violation of the ByLaws and will be held accountable.
>

What is the request exactly?
That the debate in the Task Force be archived publicly in due time (possibly 
real-time)?
Or that every member of the GA can contribute to the Task Force?

Regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html