RE: [wg-review] [Comment Please] Set timetable again or Review WG

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

[NOTE: I corrected the URL to http://www.dnso.net/orsc-dnso.htm]

My, my my, that *is* an impressive schedule. In fact the only way I can see
to make it, is that we have a good jump start. Fortunately, I have just the
thing. I hope all of you have an Acrobat PDF Reader. If you don't. I have
HTML, TXT, and Word97 DOC versions (available at
http://www.dnso.net/orsc-dnso.htm). The ICANN has seen this document
already, in Berlin. It was one of the starter documents at the Paris meeting
(before DNSO existed). It was created, in one week, on the ORSC list. Mikki
Barry was the editor. This is the same illustrious group that brought you
the original NewCo proposal.

Note that, there is no mention of formal constituency structures anywhere. I
don't expect anyone to take this at face value. I submit this in the hopes
of getting this group heading ... in ANY direction that does not include a
curved trajectory (circles). IMHO, we can do worse than this, for a starting
point.

We don't have a lot of time here.

PS. Since y'all didn't object to the pictures, I figured that y'all wouldn't
object to a PDF file containing substantive content instead. It's not
eye-candy, rather ... brain fodder ... I hope.

-- 
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


> From: YJ Park (MINC) [mailto:yjpark@minc.org]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 8:32 AM
> 
> WG members and four WG leaders,
> 
> Since this group is working on review process,
> every process even within this group should meet the rules 
> and criteria.
> There should be no exception on this.
> 
> Therefore, it is almost impossible for this group to have 
> position paper
> submission(only formaly done by registrar.com regarding dnso quality)
> and to reach "consensus" process or position-setting process 
> with given
> time by NC.
> 
> Unfortunately, many NC members are quiet about this issue and some
> members want this group to give its promised report to NC by Jan. 15.
> I have seen NC extend its due date in several cases earlier, 
> therefore,
> there should be no problem. 
> 
> [Jan 15. Designated report from Review WG Chair to NC Review TF.]
> 
> Promise is promise!!
> As promised, the Review WG (observation) report will be delivered to
> NC review task force on Jan 15 with condition that Review WG is going 
> to submit its progress report on Feb 20.
> 
> ========================================
> Feb 9 - 14.  Review WG Position Paper Submission
> Feb 14 - 19 Review WG Position Paper Comment Period.
> Feb 20         Review WG Position Paper Delivered to NC
> ========================================
> 
> Since this Jan 15's observation report is not going to be 
> public position 
> of  this Review working group, I am seeking your understanding on
> submitting this report with bunch of papers or commments or even poll
> results made in this group.
> 
> Thanks,
> YJ
> 
> FYI. [Appendix 1] The first timetable of Review Working Group.
> 
> Dec. 19 - 22 : 
> Review WG was formed by NC and its press release 
> have been prepared.
> 
> Dec. 23 - 26 : 
> The press release was announced through icann-announce list 
> on Dec. 23 and WG members had its brief and informal introduction 
> session.
> 
> Dec. 27 - Jan 4: 
> Ten topics with questions from NC Review TF was circulated.
> Three topics has been added by WG members including IDNH,
> sTLD and GA chair election. However most discussion has been
> focused on Constituencies - Structure - so far.
> 
> Jan 5 - Jan 9:
> 
> Call for Position Paper on each topic, 13 topics until Jan 9.
> 
> Jan 10 - Jan 11:
> 
> Comments from members on the presented position papers.
> 
> Jan 12 - Jan 14: 
> 
> Progress Report will be submitted to this group and will have
> another consulation from this group before it is presented to NC.

Emanuel.exe