Re: [Clarification] Re: [wg-review] [Agenda] Issues List - 4

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Elisabeth,
Welcome on this WG-Review: another NC Member joining the WG-Review
which is supposed to report to the NC. Soon the WG-Review will be an
extended NC so we will by-pass the Task Force but we will gain delays:
we will report together to the BoD. Time galore!

On 19:46 06/01/01, Elisabeth Porteneuve said:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Let me clarify some innaccurate items in the long message attached
>below.

I understand the only "inaccurate item" is that you are not the Scribe.

I never said you were, I talked about your report; as it was not signed and
I suppose that as the NC Secretary - ie. legally responsible - you do as
every elect Secretary Officer in any association and corporation: you
review the minutes of the meetings which are published by your office.
No offense was meant. To the countrary the acknowledgement of your
office and responsibility. (This report show you stil assume them until
un replacement has been found).

>First of all, I did not drafted the minutes from the Names Council
>held on 19 December -- Maca Jamin was our Scribe, and she desserves
>our gratitude to do her work very well.
>Since last October when I get elected to the Names Council by
>the ccTLD Constituency I do not take minutes by myself, to avoid any
>possible conflict of interest.

Now we know that Mrs. Jamin has kindly played the role of Scribe, we
certainly join you in thanking her for her help. Hi, Maca: happy new year!

>Secondly, the NC minutes report all the long debate about the DNSO Review,
>but end with the DECISION D4, submitted to the NC vote, and adopted.
>Therefore this DECISION stands as the basis for the WG-Review.
>Please focus on that topics, as the timeline is indeed very short.

I do not see were there may be any "inaccuracy" here. This WG-Review
is in operation since 12/20/2000. As documented Mrs. YJ Park Chairs it
to general satisfaction of the Members.  She is our interface with the NC.
The DNSO/Secretariat report of the 12/19 meeting has been only
published today (and not sent to this WG-Review which includes @large
members not on dnso-annouce).

It gives some indications and calls for clarifications about the requests of
Mr. Philip Sheppard to change the direction of this WG-Review in apparent
disagreement with our WG-Review Chair. As Members we are only
interested in our Chair. But since NC Chair, NC Coordination with
our Chair, NC Secretary and NC Members are themselves participating as
any other Members of this WG-Review and that we are told to be in the
"dark' if we proceed as initiated by our Chair, you may understand we are
confused.

>Some URLs relevant to the DNSO Review process are recapitulated below.

I am sorry, but we are not competent to decide how they fit together. This
is the task of our Chair and of Mr. Philip Sheppard coordinating directly
with her outside of this forum.

>There is a lot of substantial messages sent to this list which I have
>been browsing today, I will send my comments in a separate message.

We will certainly be interested in reading them. But please understand
that the confusion entertained by all these different positions from the NC
is an important element for us to understand why the DNSO is not
efficient under the current NC formula.


Dear Elsabeth, I certainly accept that the word "inaccurate" was probably a
typo as:

1. you did not indicate anything inaccurate
2. my memo is only the accurate description of the confusion we are in as
     WG-Reviw goodwill Members and a request for clarification.

All the best to you.
Jefsey


--
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