DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] RE: Survey

Dear Marilyn,
this kind of input is very appreciated. You actually do what you propose 
Danny to do.  My feeling is you were doing it in the past but not for a 
while. So welcome back in the dialog area: I hope you are here to stay (I 
only presume that you were woried by the BC position against Open Nets).

ICP-3 had all your priorities as the representative of an e-commerce small 
consulting firm :-). Now you tricked the BC in including a paragraph on 
Open Nets killing a good work, you probably feel better. This only tells us 
that the ATT aircraft carrier takes a long long time to come into the wind. 
The fleet has to keep that in mind.

Now, on pratical terms, as the OTC of the ATT Task Force dont you think 
that there is a contradiction in telling Mines Sweeper Danny how its inputs 
are good genuine and welcome and to force them through some hierachical 
channel of your destroyers screen. From many simulations at sea, I know 
this is the best way to get a carrier sunk by a floating forgotten mine or 
a carefully watched yet not treated sub.

Don't you think it would be best to forget about Task Force screens and 
umbrellas and to come back to Working Groups, so Danny would directly share 
in the writing.

On 04:20 04/04/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:

>Let's set the facts out:  the small group is/was:
>Ross Rader,Registrar constituency;  Grant Forsyth, BC; Dan 
>Steinberg,GA;  Rick Shera, ccTLD; and Mark McFadden, ISPCP, who worked on 
>the survey. I invited them to undertake this project and participated ex 
>officio, and then based on their draft, provided the typing of the FINAL 
>version of the survey questions.   You seem to be accusing Ross of taking 
>full credit for the work of the small working group. I'm sure he would 
>never intentionally do that.    I asked Ross to act as team leader in the 
>development process and he did so. I've heard no complaints from his 
>colleagues in the drafting process.
>Assigning work and delegating is one of the functions of an elected chair.
>The step now before all of the TF is to help to "improve" the 
>questionnaire. I note that the TF is taking input on the questionnaire. I 
>suggest that you might want to work through Dan to provide constructive 
>input. You have a wealth of experience that few have and your insights 
>could help to ensure a good survey document.
>On another front, let's not confuse the issues. When I was elected chair 
>to the TF, I accepted the responsibility to be a chair, rather than an 
>advocate. You may be critical of my style as a chair, or you may merely be 
>The BC position on the TF is represented by Grant Forsyth, who is an able 
>representative of the BC perspective.
>So, any concerns you have about who represents the  BC and their 
>perspective can be best taken up with Grant.
>In the meantime, I consider it my task, as elected chair, to work to 
>develop process; seek to hear all sides, from those in the TF who are 
>engaged; from those who seem to be seeking to delay outcomes, and even to 
>continue to cajole those who seem to be "missing in action" or too busy on 
>some days, so that they make the time... that is the role of the chair.... 
>and to create mechanisms to support the criteria of outreach, so that the 
>TF can make a recommendation.
>As you and I know... one can be part of the problem, or one can be part of 
>the solution... isn't that always everyone's challenge?
>so, you've got a good part of your perspective about me and the 
>questionnaire wrong. How about making a positive contribution through Dan 
>and helping to fix any areas where you have  improvements in language? And 
>then offer to help with outreach to users/registrants.
>You have a unique set of background experiences.  Your perspective is 
>undoubtedly somewhat unique. And would be useful to better understand and 
>tap... to advise the TF's work. Please work through your GA 
>representative. We welcome hearing about how to improve the survey.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:08 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>Subject: Survey
>Dear Marilyn,
>You have posted a survey to the Transfers TF list, and you have indicated
>that "The survey was developed by a small group of TF members who worked
>together to generate a draft which is now presented to the full TF for input
>and suggestions."
>As I review the survey, this document appears to me to be virtually identical
>to the survey that was solely developed by Ross Rader and which was
>previously posted (Feb. 21) to:
>Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's work-product
>that you modified only in the most minor of ways.   I have previously noted
>that you are under the instructions of the BC to advocate Ross's solution to
>the transfers problem... Can't you set aside your bias just briefly enough to
>allow others on the TF to participate?  You asked no one to assist in the
>preparation of this survey, and yet you present it as if it was a project
>given over to volunteers on your TF to handle...
>Why not allow the other constituencies and the GA to get involved?  This
>should not become strictly the RC/BC roadshow.
>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

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>