<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [wg-review] Re Clarification on Deadline
Hello YJ,
If there is something MHSC.NET can help you with, please let me know.
--
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark@myepark.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 1:15 AM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-review] Re Clarification on Deadline
>
>
> Can you forward this to WG?
> And make myepark.com account is working.
>
> It's strange.
> The minc account is not working, either.
>
> To be safe, please let these two are on the list.
> ================================
> Theresa,
>
> > I've read the string of messages under this subject heading and am
> somewhat
> > surprised to see that there remains some confusion about
> the deadline for
> > the working group's report per it's mandate. The revised
> deadline has been
> > known since the working group's establishment, and
> reminders were sent
> out.
>
> I hope you are not surprised to see my further clarification
> on this any
> more.
>
> > For your convenience, I've attached for the working group
> the reminder
> sent
> > to you as Chair of this working group on the deadline for
> the working
> > group's comments based on it's mandate (a reminder of the
> revised deadline
> > was also sent to each constituency representative, GA chair
> and co-chair,
> > the task force receiving comments from all, and the NC).
>
> I have also attached for you and working group the reply to
> sent to you
> as Chair of Review Task Force on the deadline for Review
> Working Group.
>
> > As you know, the adjustment made in the schedule for the
> DNSO review is to
> > accommodate the working group's deadline of Jan. 15th, as
> set when the
> > working group and it's mandate were established.
>
> That's the part I have had no idea why we had to stick to the strange
> January
> deadline. According to you, it sounds like the Board wants NC
> to come up
> with its recommendation report or whatever on this issue "ASAP" after
> Yokohama,
> which could not beeen done properly by NC for more than five
> months without
> any this bottom-up discussion approach.
>
> That's how this review working group has been authorised to do its
> substantial
> works which they have done with focus and passion trading off
> their holidays
> due to strangely set its initial deadline or whatever. And
> you, as Chair of
> Reviw TF,
> has been asking this group to work for less than a month
> which you have
> realized
> NC could not do with more than five months, which is NOT "right".
>
> As member of this Review WG, you also have seen Review WG's timeframe,
> from discussion into the road to reach its final position
> paper, will take
> more
> time than that.
>
> Taking advantage of some board members' involvements with this group,
> I also want to ask them to clarify what really the Baord wants.
>
> 1) NC Review Task Force's report based upon
> initial-stage of Review Working Group's discussion wrap-up
>
> 2) NC Review Task Force's report based upon
> full-range of Review Working Group's discussion report
>
> 3) The final report by NC Review Task Force based upoun
> WG's full-range discussion with a process that NC's recommendation
> to the Board is agreeable by the WG which has provided
> its contribution.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > Theresa
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of YJ Park (MINC)
> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 11:35 AM
> > > To: YJ Park (MINC); jo-uk@rcn.com; J J Teernstra
> > > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Who is doing proposals as per YJ and what form do they take?
> > > > > Does the questionnaire have to be completed by
> Monday, or is the
> > > proposed
> > > > > completion date now February 2Oth?
> > > >
> > > > We should do it until Feb 20th.
> > >
> > > Sorry for using "until" again in this context ....
> > > I am not suggesting this should be wrapped up.
> > >
> > > On Feb. 20, review WG's first interim or progress report will be
> submited
> > > to NC until this group finishes its mission.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > YJ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> To: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
> Cc: <nc-review@dnso.org>; "'names council'" <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:31 AM
> Subject: [nc-review] Re: Working Group report
>
> Hello all,
>
> Let me remind your position paper schedule of this working group.
>
> =======================================
> Jan 5 - Jan 9:
> Call for Position Paper on each topic, 13 topics until Jan 9.
> =======================================
>
> Due to this group's limited discussion on 13 topics under
> limited time,
> I have made two requests to NC and especially chair of NC
> review Task Force. First, let review working group submit its
> progress report especially regarding constituencies and possibly
> others if wg can have enough responses from members.
>
> Second, let review working group have enough working days
> which has been seconded by Peter(Feb. 20) in the NC list.
>
> FYI, I attached the below message to nc-review task force and nc.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> To: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
> Cc: <nc-review@dnso.org>; "'names council'" <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:31 AM
> Subject: [nc-review] Re: Working Group report
>
>
> > Hello Theresa,
> >
> > > I hope that you had a good holiday, and that all is well.
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration and hope you had a good one, too.
> > As I told you in my earlier message, I was supposed to have my long-
> > waiting holidays from Dec. 21 until Jan 7 which has made me neither
> > work on review working group properly nor have true-sense holidays.
> >
> > > This note is just to remind you in your capacity as the
> Chair of the
> > Review
> > > Working Group that the report is due on January 15th. The
> Working Group
> > > report should address the issues under the Working Groups
> mandate as
> > > contained in the announcement of the working group
> December 21, 2000.
> The
> > > report should also include any relevant documentation to
> support it's
> > > conclusions. As The Task Force will of course also look
> at the Working
> > Group
> > > archives, but the report submitted should include all
> relevant material.
> >
> > The approval to join review working group requests have
> been made up to
> > around 300 and 100 or so out of them unsubscribed to the list due to
> > overwhleming traffic.
> >
> > Taking advantage of this, I want to show my sincere
> respects to those
> > who have participated in this process despite their holidays.
> >
> > The Review Task Force's questionaire was circulated in the
> form of 10
> > subtitles on Dec 27 and three new subjects were added to
> this by members.
> >
> > Currently, the discussion has focused on specifically structure -
> > constituencies
> > along with funding issues and fundamental question about
> decision-making
> > process
> > - consensus or majority votes ....
> >
> > > The final DNSO Review report submitted to ICANN will, of
> course, include
> > all
> > > relevant documentation as a package accompanying the
> Report. I have
> > > attached the reminder note on schedule as well, for your
> convenience.
> >
> > Theresa, can I suggest review working group submit its
> progress review
> > report
> > to the Names Council especially regarding "constituencies"
> on January 15th
> > since
> > this is the issue which seems to have its substantial
> responses from the
> > members.
> >
> > > Thank you for all your hard work as Chair of the Review
> Working Group.
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation as chair of Review TF regarding this
> process,
> > I once again ask you and Names Council to reconsider
> extending its working
> > days which can make members come up with true-sense report
> abiding by
> > the procedural rules.
> >
> > Thank you and regards,
> > YJ
> >
> > > Look forward,
> > >
> > > and kind regards,
> > >
> > > Theresa
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --
> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|