<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Communication on WG review - ACTION PLEASE!
I agree with the report.
Elisabeth
--
> From owner-council@dnso.org Tue Feb 27 11:23 MET 2001
> Message-ID: <3A9B7FE8.2AEB6FE4@REACTO.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:22:32 +0000
> From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>
> To: Peter de Blanc <pdeblanc@usvi.net>, "'NC (public)'" <council@dnso.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] Communication on WG review - ACTION PLEASE!
>
>
> I agree with the report
>
> Paul
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > I agree with the report.Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@dnso.org
> > [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 6:11 AM
> > To: NC (public)
> > Subject: [council] Communication on WG review - ACTION
> > PLEASE!
> > Importance: High
> >
> > NC members,As agreed last night this is the message I
> > propose to send on behalf of the NC to WG review. This is
> > consistent with NC decision D2 of 8 February 2001. (I note
> > since the NC meeting YJ Park has posted a personal
> > commentary and an older version of this to the WG review
> > anyway. This is regrettable, it makes for poor communication
> > to the working group. It also seems to be contrary to the
> > spirit of collegiate agreement we seek to achieve within the
> > NC.) So please let me have comments on this message within
> > 24 hours. I would like to send this to WG review at 10.00 am
> > Paris time Wednesday 28
> > February.Philip.-----------------------------------------------IMPORTANT
> > MESSAGE FOR WORKING GROUP REVIEW
> > Future timetable for the groups input
> >
> > Status
> > 1. The DNSO comment period on the draft DNSO Review Report
> > v. 2.0a ended
> > February 11th.
> >
> > Next steps
> > 2. Comments submitted from WG Review and others has been
> > incorporated as
> > appropriate by the chair of the Names Council Review Task
> > Force (NCRTF) into
> > a draft version 3. NCRTF comprises one representative from
> > each of the
> > seven NC constituencies. Version 3 has been validated by
> > remaining members
> > of the NCRTF.
> >
> > 3. DNSO Review Report version 3 was received 18 February by
> > the ICANN Board. This is in preparation for the Board's
> > meeting in March in Melbourne and to allow full time for an
> > ICANN public comment period.
> >
> > 4. As was mandated, the task of the Names Council Review
> > Task Force,
> > including a DNSO public comment period, is now complete.
> >
> > 5. In order to ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board, all
> > further
> > comments from WG Review should be directed to the ICANN
> > public comment
> > website, when the ICANN public comment period begins.
> >
> > 6. At the closure of the ICANN public comment period the
> > task of WG Review
> > will be complete.
> >
> > Implementation
> > 7. The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from
> > the final WG D
> > report and from the Review process to develop a new process
> > to implement the
> > recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in
> > this
> > implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the
> > structure of
> > participation will be an improvement on the present
> > structure of DNSO
> > working groups!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Theresa Swinehart, Chair, DNSO Review Task Force
> > Philip Sheppard, NC Chair
> >
> > ---------------------END-------------------------
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|