[nc-intake] WG reports

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

Paul,
I am not sure if the Feb 26 meeting could sensibly handle further review
discussion plus WG D plus WG E (assuming WG E is ready).

Perhaps you could consider these for the next two meetings or so. But we
need to decide what will be suitable and the priorities for an open meeting
in Melbourne.


Philip

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>
To: "YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
Cc: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>; "Philip Sheppard"
<philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Sent: 02 February 2001 07:27
Subject: Re: Review WG-D's status report in Feb. 8 meeting.


I think WG-E's report, like WG-D's, relates solely to internal DNSO matters,
so it would not need to be forwarded to the Board for approval.

         -- Bret

YJ Park (MINC) wrote:
> Thank you, Bret.
>
> This reminds me of WG-E's report which has been put aside due to
> "public comment" period arguement.
>
> I propose WG-E's report which has been held for more than five
> months be discussed and NC make its recommendation to the Board
> in the next NC teleconference on Feb. 26.
>
> YJ
>
>> A draft report to the NC was sent to WG-D members today. As soon as WG
>> members have signed off on it and upon the advice of Theresa about how to
>> begin the public comment period, we will forward it directly to the NC.
>>
>> If you wish to review the latest draft, it is here:
>>
>> http://www.lextext.com/NCReport.pdf
>>
>> http://www.lextext.com/wgdv4.pdf
>>
>> -- Bret
>>
>>
>> YJ Park (MINC) wrote:
>>> We also noted Caroline's suggestion to let WG-D come up with its
>>> final report to facilitate WG model in the DNSO. I do agree.
>>> We need some format to let WG function as it has been designed.
>>
>>
>