[nc-review] 1st Comment on Draft DNSO Review report, version 2.0

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Theresa,

Can you revise draft version 2.0 upon following requests
properly before it is issued in the name of NC Review TF report?

I raised some concerns earlier to NC Review TF regarding
version 1.0 and realized they are not properly updated in your
version 2.0.

Let me point out again what your version 2.0 should have been
written upon request or inputs by members of Review TF.

First Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0 is still left
as it was in version 1.0.

The report had better describe

Working Group Review has had its first stage of facilitating review
process from Dec 23 - Jan 15 by submitting its status report and
it is in its second stage of articulating its works and recommendations
to the DNSO Review Report before Melbourne meeting.

> 1st. Your below description regarding time schedule might bring
> some misunderstanding on DNSO Review Working Group's
> request to extend its working days which this group still can't hear
> from NC clearly and its real situation regarding the working days.

Second Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0 is also left
as it was in version 2.0. Only difference is you just put it in the notes
rather than in the main content not reflecting any other concern in
other constituencies. If you properly update your own or other
constituencies for the difficulty to reach such consensus, I don't have
objection to put it. However, to make use of Non-commercial
constituency only for the bad sample, it is not acceptable.

> Therefore, please withdraw using non-commercial constituency
> as a bad model which can mislead the Board or the public who really
> don't have any specifc details or background on this.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/maillist.html;
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/0034.html;
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02060.html;
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02070.html.

> i.e. You referred to IPC position, ISPC position, etc...
> It would be valuable to share how those positions came from by which
> mechanism will give us a guidance and solution.
>
> Since you are representing Business constituency, it would be easier for
> you to start to share such info with Review TF members. In addition to
this,
> if each constituency can provide "open discussion channel" cross
> constituencies, that would help to enhance the understanding each other.

You can edit the content as an editor however, there should be reasons
why you keep ignoring those requests from a member of NC review TF.
                                            [Part 1]