Re: [council] [Clarification] Review Working Group

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Thank you, Erica, for your suggestion.

No problem at all to have approval by NC of proposed terms of reference
and timeframe, however, to make it happen to see an early result from WG,
(It's not my group nor somebody's group, It's just review group.:-)
I think we need to move forward.

As far as I remember, our next teleconference will be on Dec. 19 which is
almost one month away.

It would be much practical to give a time such as one-week comment period,
Nov. 23 - Nov.30 for every NC member to make a comment on this specific
issues both WG's terms of reference and timeframe as you recommended.

Thanks again for your comment.
YJ


> Hi YJ,
> I'm pleased to hear you're back on deck and helping to clarify this
issue.!
> I would like to see an early result from your group (wouldn't we all!) and
> you are clearly working toward this.  However, I think it would be useful
> for you to have approval by the NC of proposed terms of reference and
> timeframe - maybe we could finalise this at our next teleconf?  What is
your
> view?
>
> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> To: <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 8:27 AM
> Subject: [council] [Clarification] Review Working Group
>
>
> > Hello Caroline, Peter, Erica, Dany and all,
> >
> > Sorries for my belated response this time. After MdR meeting,
> > I have been worn out and it took quite time to come back.:-)
> >
> > In MdR, Ken and I talked about this a bit more and agreed that
> > the details of this "Review Working Group" should be elaborated
> > by myself and finalized.
> >
> > Let me briefly describe right now and more detailed plans are
> > expected to be developed within the Working Group later.
> >
> > 1) how Review Working Group is composed of
> > 2) the Scope of Review WG
> > 3) Timeframe of Review WG and
> > 4) how this group is going to work with Review TF and NC.
> >
> > =======================
> > Review Working Group, WG F
> > =======================
> >
> > 1. Call for participation through 7 constituencies and GA
> >
> > Hope this WG can be inclusive as much as posible for the balanced
> > recommendations.
> >
> > Call for election for co-working group chair among members
> > as soon as this group is in place.
> >
> > 2. Scope of WG
> >
> > 1st Stage: This Working Group can start from answering to the Review
> >                 TF's questionaire which was presented to the Board.
> >
> > 2 nd Stage: Call for DNSO recommendation paper.
> >
> > 3 rd Stage: Take a voting process to adopt the WG's position paper
> >                   which will be presented to the NC.
> >
> > 3. Timeframe of Review WG
> >
> > Nov. 27 - open end : Call for Participation in this WG
> > Dec. 4 : WG Charter Discussion
> > Dec. 11 : WG Charter Finalization
> > Dec. 11 - Jan.? : WG's Interim Report during Jan's NC teleconference
> > Jan.?  - Feb ? : WG's Interim Report during Feb's NC teleconference
> > March Melbourne Meeting: Submission to NC as WG's position
> >                                            under assumption that it can
> find
> > consensus.
> >
> > 4. The relationship with Review TF and NC
> >
> > Review WG and Review TF and NC:
> >
> > Since WG is within DNSO and TF is within NC, it is desirable
> > for two groups to exchange views and info to achieve their goals
> > as each input channel to NC and and advisory body to the NC.
> > ==========================================
> >
> > If you have any comment on this, please do so.
> > If we can reach an agreement as soon as possible, as it is put here,
> > this WG can start from Nov. 27.
> >
> > Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
> > YJ
> >
>