RE: [nc-review] Worried

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

Roberto,

While I agree, I'd also like to point out that in the US we had a longer
weekend (which many extend into longer holiday weekend. While we don't take
the month of August off, the end of August and the Labor day weekend is a
significant period when many are not on mail.

I suggest that we allow through the end of this week for comments from the
review group. I'm very interested in seeing the review group get work done,
and I for one would like to review it, having in mind the many comments that
were exchanged on the working group (which I understand the ga discussions
is? Perhaps Roberto you could help provide a sense what some of the main
views in the larger working group were as input to this core group?

Perhaps folks are absorbed in elections -- but agree 100% with you that we
need to move forward, if others could likewise forward their comments.

Thanks

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of R.Gaetano@iaea.org
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 3:26 PM
> To: nc-review@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-review] Worried
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I have to confess that I am getting worried about this situation.
>
> This Task Force is essentially silent, and this silence is
> counterbalanced
> by a lot of activity on some lists, for instance the GA and NonCom.
> If I had to draw conclusions, the obvious one is that this
> Task Force is not
> interested in getting the ball moving: maybe people are more
> absorbed by the
> election of the DNSO-selected ICANN Director. OTOH, there is a lot of
> interest "outside".
>
> I propose that the draft report of YJ, that had *zero*
> comments in two weeks
> on this list, be passed to the NC with the recommandation to
> create as soon
> as possible an open Working Group. A lot of people are just
> waiting for this
> Working Group to start to propose their ideas and discuss the
> matter. What
> are we waiting for?
>
> In any case, in Yokohama this was the proposal of the NC: to
> create the Task
> Force, to define the charter of the Working Group, and let
> the Working Group
> discuss the matter.
>
> BTW, let me take this chance to add a point to the shopping
> list of the
> future WG: a unique DNSO Voting Registry.
> The nomination of the DNSO Director, once again, create
> difficulties of
> verification, because most of the Constituencies are unable
> to provide a
> list of who is "part of the Constituency" and therefore allowed to
> nominate/endorse. To run any serious ballot, or endorsement,
> or any voting
> activity, in a situation where the list of voters is not defined, is
> impossible.
> The situation has to be corrected, once these elections over, with an
> official list of who can endorse/vote. Of course, considering
> the principle
> that "every member of any Constituency is a member of the
> GA", the best
> solution is to ask everybody, in the Constituencies, WGs,
> etc. to join the
> GA Voting Registry.
> But I assume that the solution has to be indcated by the WG,
> I just show the
> problem to be corrected.
>
> Best regards
> Roberto