Re: [wg-review] Objectives of this WG

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

Philip,

This sounds like flimflam.

I certainly feel duped.  If the task before this WG is what you have noted
below (as opposed to what is posted on the DNSO website), then may I suggest
you simply let people point and click their answers to your questions
through use of a web page form rather than create this artifice? Indeed, the
irony is certainly not missed, perhaps the task force should add it to its
report.  In the future, I hope that the NC would not use WGs "to add to
existing replies."


Rod

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Objectives of this WG


> 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
>
>

--
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