DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion

1/26/01 1:55:27 PM, Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> wrote:

>I find it curious - understandable, but still curious - that there has been 
>any focus or question about whether or not NC members should be 
>participating in the discussion here. By all means, examine what they write 
>and how they respond, it will help you to understand them, but to question 
>their participation seems counterproductive to an inclusive process. 

What I don't understand is why anybody would maintain that they are not already *included*?  They are the ones 
on the Names Council, not us.  If what they really wanted was public outreach feedback before they went ahead 
and made whatever decision they're going to make... why bother taking part in the feedback?  For good or ill? Why 
bother?  Unless, it's really no bother, and they have nothing more pressing to attend to... I don't know.  I'm just 
conjecturing here, perhaps you can help here, Greg.

>On the 
>one hand, there seems to be concern that the NC aren't taking the WG 
>seriously - on the other, concerns expressed when they participate. It 
>seems to me it would be rather hard to take the WG seriously and also not 
>participate, but perhaps I'm just an idealist.

Idealism and realism don't mix very well.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 

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

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