[nc-review] Re: Draft interim report Review
My real objection to the report is in the section discussing consensus and
representation, which describes the DNSO as a "representative"
body (which it is not), and which describes open working groups
as "unrepresentative," which is true in a statistical sense, but
actually WGs form a fairly accurate picture of who is really a
stakeholder in a particular issue or area.
So under consensus, please add:
The representative of the NCDNHC rejects the description of the DNSO as
a "representative body", believing that the current constituency
structure is unbalanced and gives certain interests an unbreakable
veto power over policy;
The representative of the NCDNHC also believes that open
working groups better reflect the views of the relevant
>>> "Philip Sheppard" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 10/08/01 05:42AM >>>
Milton and Roberto,
I do not want to damn a whole report covering several issues because TF members have reservations about some of the majority views on certain issues. I have included all non-conflictual comments. In order to get task force agreement to the report I propose adding a section for minority views and to summarise your views as follows. Please let me have your support to the report with this addition - and a reply today (Monday Oct 8) would be wonderful!.
Two task force members had alternative opinions on certain points.
The representative of the GA believed the by-law requirement and practise whereby the NC sanctions the election result of the GA chair should be abolished.
The representative of the GA, while not dismissing the proposed criteria, believed that that the creation of new constituencies should have no higher burden than the creation of initial constituencies.
The representative of the NCDNHC proposed the new criteria should be applied retroactively to all constituencies, if they were to apply to new ones.
The representative of the NCDNHC proposed making the GA itself a DNSO constituency to represent individuals.
The representative of the GA preferred the term "working group consensus" in place of "majority vote of the working group".