[wg-review] The Future

["Babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

We appreciate the efforts being made to have our Chair present in future
discussions with the Names Council as we move forward into this "new phase
to cooperate".  I'm sure that all of us are eager to have our comments
become "part of the prioritization process of items to be returned to the NC
to be considered as part of the DNSO Business Plan".  We appreciate the fact
that "Review implementation is part of the Business Plan", and that
implementing even more studies through a "new Task Force with new terms of
reference" is clearly preferable to actually getting some real bottoms-up
consensus-based conclusions from the Review WG.  We have taken note of the
fact that "at the closure of the ICANN Public Comment period the task of the
Review WG will be complete", and I'm sure we all agree that this was the
best way to "ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board".  Assuredly, we
clearly understand that "full participation in this implementation phase is
envisioned" and that "it is understood that the structure of participation
will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO working groups!"
We are delighted that a Task Force Approach is to be the model of the
future, as the filtering and the timely and cooperative performance so far
has been a stellar model to which all should aspire.  We can only hope that
future task forces also will issue such well-considered single-author
recommendations... after all, why implement any changes when one only needs
to implement more studies about everything?  Sorry, that was an
exaggeration... the Review Task Force did not recommend that the Names
Council be studied.  I wonder why?





--
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