Re: [wg-review] Objectives of this WG

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

> 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.

Philip, can you provide any specific concerns based upon the Board
discussion
regarding DNSO review?

If the Board can choose between the "true-sense" and substantial DNSO review
and the "time-pressured by unrealistic deadline" and "superficial" DNSO
Review
which the Board is going to go for?

> 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.

Don't you remember why this effort has been initiated since Yokohama?
After WG C's final report to NC which had been accused of NC's own
interpretation - some say "arbitrary" some say "independent", many people
expressed their abomination toward NC.

NC has presented its position to the Board on WG A, B and C.
WG E's report has not been even delivered to the Board yet.

Now you are trying to merge this WG's effort in the name of one of inputs
rather than respecting their own independent review which should go to the
Board as reference at least.

Therefore, this should be discussed and decided by this group as part of
dnso review what kind of mechanism should be set up between NC and WG.

> 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.

As I told repeatedly, this group will start from the request from Review TF
until Jan. 15 however, the scope of this group should not be limited to
the questionaire at all in the long term.

Thanks,
YJ

--
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