Re: [wg-review] who is a legitimate member of this list?

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

Hello those who want to clarify WG membership,


"Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> wrote:
> This WG is supposed to be DNSO review. Am I making the 
> incorrect assumption that all participants in the list are or should 
> be  DNSO constituency members?

Not necessarily.

Sotiropoulos said:
>Here's what the ICANN announcement says:
>...     the group is open to anyone to participate
>       and operates by e-mail. 

That's how I had to handle more than 250 approval processes
and there have been more than 90 unsubscribers who gave up
this list due to too much traffic a day.

> YJ Park said:

> >[Issue 2] In the terms of reference which was circulated on Dec 23,
> >only GA and 7 constituencies members can be on the WG.
> >At-Large members can be invited, though.

As Greg pointed out here, I asked Review WG to revisit this issue with
weight before charter finalization which this group couldn't do properly
due to too many issues to deal with under limited time pressure.

==========================
Membership: [version 0.3]

I. Open Membership
GA members, 7 Constituencies 

II. Invited Membership
Liaison ASO/PSO members/At-Large
Board members
===========================

FYI, until version 0.2 the membership was described to be open 
to even At-large which was changed according to the consultation.

===============================
I. Open Membership: [version 0.1 and 0.2]
GA members, 7 Constituencies and At-Large
===============================

Since we don't have enough time to hassle regarding this issue,
we can stick to version 0.3 which happens to harmonize with
icann-announce which doesn't prevent from At-large members'
participation in this group either. They are "self-invited" here.

Some raised the concern that some NC members participate in WG
process turned out to lead this group to a certain direction this group
doesn't agree upon in the name of NC.

Therefore, I would like to strongly urge those NC members to clarify
their positions either as member of Review WG or member of NC
whenever they express their views in this list.

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