[ga] RE: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper
- To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [ga] RE: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:15:37 -0400
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-Index: AcHiXbFU+2vqO2LaR+ylYl/9n3g1kgACTW3A
- Thread-Topic: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper
thanks for asking, Danny. I'll read the questions again that you asked, and see if I think I can add any value on any of them. I do have some thoughts on the "staffing" and support item and what my experience is in other organizational settings. Perhaps I can start there .. It will be over the week end. I'm headed off for now...
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 4:08 PM
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Re: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper
Thank you for your response.
I tend to take the view that position papers that are written at a very high
level of generality do not serve the organization well. Merely stating that
a constituency has agreed in principle that there are "things" wrong with
ICANN, and that ICANN should do "something" about these problems doesn't
really help that much, does it?
We have less than three weeks to articulate "specific" recommendations to the
Reform Committee. If you don't wish to speak on behalf of the BC, I would
appreciate hearing details and answers to these questions even if they would
only be your own personal thoughts.
Perhaps such an exchange of views will stimulate discussion on this forum
regarding the best way forward on restructuring.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html