Re: [wg-review] Objectives of this WG

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

Jonathan, thanks for your comments on the WG deadline of Jan 15.

It is important  not to consider this WG in the same light as previous WGs.
It is not intended to solve DNSO operational problems, nor be the only means
of response to the Names Council Review Task Force Questionnaire (NCRTFQ).
There have already been two calls via the GA and the Constituencies over the
last few months to respond to the NCRTFQ. The NC's objective for this WG is
to add to the existing replies. Consensus on the replies is desirable but
not essential. A reply to a question that 10 people think this and 15 think
that is valid too.

The timetable is not driven in isolation by the NC but in order to comply
meaningfully with a Board request to allow then to react to an NC Review
report at their Melbourne meeting in March.

The process is:
- NCRTF writes a survey and outreaches
- That outreach includes this WG
- the NCRTF listens to all input and produces a report
- there is a comment period for that report
- the report is finalised and goes to the Board in advance of Melbourne.

It would therefore be great if opinion on the key questions raised in the
NCRTFQ (and categorised as YJ proposed) could be voiced. I trust we can all
see the irony in arguing over the process in a process intended to improve
the process.

Philip.



--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html