[wg-review] Second Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0
Here is my 2nd concern regarding constituency's common standards on
position-decision mechanism based upon the experience in the non-
When it comes to decision-making process in a group, it is very hard
to measure whether some specific proposals can represent the whole
constituency or not. Sometimes people use voting, which has been
carried out non-commercial constituency since Yokohama meeting.
However, non-commercial constituency still has several problems to
tackle both pre-voting and post-voting after face-to-face meeting voting
which allows only small group to exercise their own rights as members.
The below description sounds like non-commercial constituency
has had serious problems in representing members, which can be
true in terms of "perfect standard". I am sure no constituency at this
moment can meet the standard yet.
However, non-commercial constituency itself has been trying to set up
a set of rules such as to establish a process of finalizing constituency's
position which is expected to be presented to the Board or NC or GA
as non-commercial constituency's position since Cairo meeting. The
voting has been adopted and experimented by volunteers who sacrifice
his/her own time to do that.
Regarding this DNSO Review process in the non-commercail constituency,
AdCom members, myself, Dany and Vany clearly expressed to you and
our constituency that AdCom's position was delivered to Review TF
without pre-circulation in the list with apologies due to miscommunication.
And then as you know that has been circulated to the members.
Therefore, please withdraw using non-commercial constituency
as a bad model which can mislead the Board or the public who really
don't have any specifc details or background on this.
Out of Theresa's report
common standards and practices within constituencies on determining
the ‘position of a constituency’, as opposed to statements made by some
members of a constituency, on behalf of all without input from members.
For example, while the non-commercial constituency provided an
official comment on January 8, 2001, from the AdCom
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/maillist.html), the adcom
hadn’t circulated this comment to the membership.
See http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/0034.html, and discussion under WG
As I suggested in the WG-Review report as of Jan 15 to the Review TF,
it is recommendable to share what kind of decision-making mechanism
each constituency has been trying together with its merits and demerits.
i.e. You referred to IPC position, ISPC position, etc...
It would be valuable to share how those positions came from by which
mechanism will give us a guidance and solution.
Since you are representing Business constituency, it would be easier for
you to start to share such info with Review TF members. In addition to this,
if each constituency can provide "open discussion channel" cross
constituencies, that would help to enhance the understanding each other.
For the last, there should be a section in the Review Report, each
constituency introduces its own decision-making procedure together with
Non-commercial constituency's discussion has been open since its start
which also made us pay a price, too.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html