NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Rosemary Sinclair <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 3 May 2010 03:40:30 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2149 bytes) , text/html (2917 bytes)
Hi Avri



I am happy to go with consensus - my only purpose was to provide you with some input based on my views



The highlighting was just to point to the specific words that caused me to comment



My point on Constituencies is an administrative one - and if Board is happy for NCSG to have only Interest Groups then I suggest we ask the Board to commit to resourcing Interest Groups eg the discussion on face to face mtgs of some months ago



I'm happy to provide more info on any point that might be unclear



Cheers



Rosemary

Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus



-----Original Message-----

From: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:45:52 

To: <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: Sinclair comments -  Members review of Draft Proposed NCSG Charter



Hi,
 
 I have read through your extensive edits and on first reading, I have a question and a comment:
 
 
 - the question:  I do not understand why you have highlighted section in yellow.  do you mean that the charter should have these things highlighted.
 
 - On the question of constituencies.
 
 The board has already approved two Stakeholder Groups charters that do not have constituencies.    As I understood our conversations with the SIC and the Board they are not requiring constituencies so long as we have a clear charter and we explain the decisions we have made.    This is the purpose of the cover letter which is still being worked.
 
 Yours is the first call I have seen from within the NCSG for us to continue with formal constituencies and I do not know if there is any other support for it with the NCSG membership.
 
 At this point unless I see strong support from the members, I do not think it is something we should change.
 
 I will look through the rest of your proposed edits in detail.
 
 a.
 
 On 2 May 2010, at 22:31, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
 
 > Hi Avri and everyone
 >
 > Some thoughts for discussion
 >
 > Cheers
 >
 > Rosemary
 >
 > Rosemary Sinclair
 > Managing Director, ATUG
 > Chairman, INTUG
 > T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889
 > M: +61 413734490
 > Email: [log in to unmask]
 > Skype: rasinclair
 
 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2