Re: [wg-review] role of the WG

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

If I understand you, Milton, We need to digest the "too big" task and feed
back the "need to do" smaller tasks and recommend wg's for them with more
"doable" tasks and better time tables for accomplishing them?  It's what
I've felt since I got into the second day of reading the list.

Restructuring ICANN or DNSO, is beyond us.  Recommending areas to be
addressed by wg's and other entitiy within ICANN is more like it.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 13:57:23 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:

>  Given our time limits, I think the best thing this WG can do is identify
and carefully document problems, and make it clear to NC and the Board that
these problems need to be addressed.
>  
>  We can make general suggestions as to how to remedy the problems, but we
should not confuse that with a redesign the DNSO. We don't have the time or
the authority to do that. 
>  
>  We don't even have to decide on a single, exclusive course of action. For
example, whether we like constituencies or not. We can identify problems and
report back: "some people say these problems are inherent in the
constituency structure and propose to eliminate them altogether. other
people say we need to add new constituencies. Others propose to redefine the
process for creating constituencies, or restructure constituencies." 
>  
>  If we try to come up with The One True Solution to the DNSO's problems we
will not accomplish anything.
>  
>  --MM
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/