RE: [wg-review] Objectives of this WG

["Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>]

Anyone who participated in WG-B or WG-C knows that what the NC wants to
hear it will use, and what the NC doesn't want to hear, it won't.

It's *all* flimflam, the only options being (a) participate, so no one can
claim you didn't try to influence the process, and (b) don't participate,
so no one can claim that there was broad-based participation and all points
were considered.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Next.

J

Judith Oppenheimer, 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
Publisher, http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com
Domain Name & 800 News, Intelligence, Analysis
(ICB Premium is on sale thru Jan 15 - save $400!)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:05 PM
> To: Philip Sheppard; wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Objectives of this WG
>
>
> 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
>

--
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