<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
- To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:08:09 +0100
- In-reply-to: <1233896660.5569.124.camel@bower>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcmIOm3lG5K9rxLgG06sbKek8uJ6jw==
- Thread-topic: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
- User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024
Two good questions.
If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's
what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency
they are claiming to represent.
On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind.
users.
So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all".
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
>>
>> Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to
>> represent an individual users perspective rather than overly
>> conflicting with other interests?
>>
>
> How does one do this?
>
> In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it not be up to
> each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the
> viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
>
> a.
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|