[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Slides: Mailing lists as tool for member organization.
- To: Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>
- Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Slides: Mailing lists as tool for member organization.
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
- Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:17:17 +0100
- Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <E13rhRR-0001Bg-00@mrvdom02.schlund.de>; from svensson@icannchannel.de on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 03:01:27PM +0100
- Mail-Followup-To: Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>,icann-europe@fitug.de
- References: <E13rhRR-0001Bg-00@mrvdom02.schlund.de>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
On 2000-11-03 15:01:27 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Thanks for the effort! I have the feeling that the role of the
> proposed Working Groups might need further clarification. I
> presume you meant an input-gathering Working Group process where
> the WGs don't have any delegated decision-making powers; if so, I
> agree.
Yes. I had hoped to make this clear with the layered model.
> The W3C process provides solutions for the problems of
> -- WGs out of scope of the whole organization's activities
> (by defining W3C "activities")
> -- WG members not seriously commited to the WG charter
> (by defining "good standing")
> -- deciding whether consensus has been reached
> (by letting the Chair decide, following guidelines)
> -- dealing with majority and minority views
> (by recording both, having an appeals process etc)
> That doesn't necessarily mean that these solutions are the
> right ones for us, but that these are probably problems
> we will also have to face.
I hope we can avoid most of these problems, by moving them to a more
representative layer in whatever structure may emerge.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>