RE: [council] Communication on WG review - ACTION PLEASE!

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

The only NCRTF member to raise concerns was YJ, whose comments were received
very very late on the last date of the Task Force reviewing time. Her
comments were included in the footnotes, as it was unclear where they were
to be included or what specifics they sought to clarify. This was
communicated to her. All those communications can be found at the Task Force
listserve archives.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Chicoine, Caroline G.
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: 'Philip Sheppard'; NC (public)
> Subject: RE: [council] Communication on WG review - ACTION PLEASE!
>
>
> This looks fine with me assuming that the content is true (for example, I
> presume that version 3 has been validated by remaining members of the
> NCRTF).
>
> I am disturbed, however, regarding Philip's parenthetical comment since YJ
> is the NC's voice as liaison Chair for this WG.  YJ can you please explain
> to the rest of us what is going on.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:11 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-------------------------
>