Re: [wg-review] Mandate of WG

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Personally, I would like to hear from YJ Park, the Chairperson here as to the questions. Since the chair posted a list of questions we were to address and I have not seen a retraction of those questions by the chair, then it is still the valid list of questions for this WG, not others created since that time unless the Chair recognizes it as such.

 

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----

From: Greg Burton

To: jo-uk@rcn.com

Cc: wg-review@dnso.org

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:19 PM

Subject: [wg-review] Mandate of WG

At 03:46 PM 1/3/01, Joanna Lane wrote:

Kent,
Thank you.

I would just put on record that this WG apparently labored under the wrong
referenced terms between December 23rd and Jan 3rd and not one member or the
Chair drew attention to it.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion quite yet, Joanna :)

On 12:02 PM 12/27/00, YJ Park said:
[Issue 4] If I remind Review WG members as liaison chair from NC,
this working group has been recommended by NC to start coming up
with a full-scale recommendation paper to the NC Review Task Force's
questionaire.

So we have this, and the chair of the NC participating without challenging the appropriateness of the mandate itself - it's not what Philip has suggested it is, perhaps. I would like to call attention to the phrase "full-scale recommendation paper" in particular, and the statement that the NC is expecting us to do that.

Actually.......unless a press release is the "approved terms of reference" there doesn't seem to be any other published. The following was attached to an NC list post made on December 21st with the header "Press Release", by Philip Sheppard. It's a Word document - it's not viewable directly in the archives. Since no minutes of the meeeting on the 19th have been published (as far as I'm aware) we really have no way of knowing how this was developed, or whether the press release as such are the working terms for the group as understood by the names council. Since YJ published her pre-meeting material as the process for us to work with, I have to assume it was NOT so understood by the credited co-author of the release.
-------------
"December 21, 2000  To get additional input into a review of its own consensus-building procedures, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) at its December 19 meeting established a Review Working Group charged with actively seeking input from the widest possible set of Internet stakeholders.

The new working group, chaired by Names Council member Y J Park, is established immediately and seeks to complete its work by January 15^th 2001. In common with previous DNSO work groups, the group is open to anyone to participate and operates by e-mail."

"Interested parties are encouraged to sign-up now by sending an email to majordomo@dnso.org  with the words subscribe wg-review in the body of the message.

The working group will provide additional answers to an extensive questionnaire developed by a task force of Names Council members with a mandate to improve the decision-making process of the Names Council by more effective outreach.  The task force has already made two calls for input to its questionnaire from DNSO constituencies and its general assembly. This final call is intended to improve the quality and quantity of input as a function of the interactive nature of a DNSO working group."

Of course, the statement that the WG is open to anyone who wants to participate is simply not correct.

As you say, unfortunate circumstances, but if these could be viewed as
seriously misleading members, then I fail to see why it would not constitute
reasonable grounds for granting an extension to the life of this WG.

The question, actually, is "which version of the group mandate is misleading".

Regards,
Greg