Re: [wg-review] Time line for this WG should extend to 20 Feb,2001 at a minimum.

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

I agree with this suggestion. 

BTW, as someone who keeps fairly close tabs on Washington, I don't understand the reference to the Dept of Commerce here. If the DoC makes any moves, they will be directed at ICANN generally, or at its new TLD contracts, not at the DNSO, which is a minor part of ICANN's structure.

I would suggest that the original time limit has more to do with the existing Names Council's unwillingness to have a real review than anything in DC.

>>> "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> 12/28/00 02:53 AM >>>
I propose that this WG communicate to the Names Council that, In order to give proper consideration to the subject, and allow a fair and equitable
opportunity for full International participation, the timeline for output run through 20 February 2001.

This is still in plenty of time for Melbourne. Also, It is unlikely that the new US secretary of commerce is going to make any substantive moves while this work is in process.

peter de Blanc




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of YJ Park
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 11:49 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-review] Ten Topics of Review WG


As some members expressed it is urgent to concentrate our energies
and efforts on the specific issues to reach consensus within the group
and finally Review WG can provide its (interim/final)report until Jan 15.

Additional issues and concerns can be freely discussed if the necessity
arises such as General Assembly Chair election process.

To make discussion more effective from now on, whenever members
circulate the message to the list, it is recommended for members to
specify the subject title out often here. - the subject can be expanded
subject to the requests by members.

1. [Charter] Review Process Background and Charter Discussion
2. [Outreach and DNSO] Report requested by NC
3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
4. [GA] Report requested by NC
5. [Working Group] Report requested by NC
6. [Secretariat] Report requested by NC
7. [Names Council] Report requested by NC
8. [WG A, B, C and DNSO] Report requested by NC
9. [DNSO Quality] Report requested by NC
10. [The Board and DNSO] Report requested by NC

Thanks,
YJ