[wg-review] [Information] Discussion on Timetable and Tasks

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

WG members,

This is a brief description on how Theresa, NC Review TF, Philip,
NC chair, myself, NC Liaison and Greg Burton, WG-Review chair
have discussed on WG-Review since Feb 8.

Feb. 8: NC Teleconference decision on WG-Review

Decision D2 : proposed by Ph. Sheppard, Seconded Th. Swinehart:

It was agreed that Th. Swinehart with Y.J. Park and the NC Chair would draft
a communication to the WG to confirm the present timetable and that WG
Review input NOT received by the DNSO by Feb 11 would form a part of the
ICANN public comment period and that would complete the work of WG Review.

Feb 8: Message from YJ to Philip for coordination.

Feb 12: 1st Update on NC discussion from YJ to WG-Review

Feb 12: Message from Philip to YJ and Theresa

Feb 17: 2nd Update on NC discussion from YJ to WG-Review
             [Appendix 1]

Feb 19: Philip's message to Greg ccYJ and Theresa [Appendix 2]

Feb 26: Philip's message to WG-Review
             Concern in no response from Greg

Feb. 27: Feb NC teleconference

Philip noted that Philip, Theresa and YJ could not reach a consensus
regarding the position on WG-review and then such effort also failed
when Philip tried it with Greg.

Philip suggested that he is going to circulate his position on WG-Review
again to the NC mailing list to let NC cast votes.

Thanks,
YJ

[Appendix 1]

Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.

> Hello Theresa and Philip,
>
> First, thank you for your efforts here however the terms
> you have described here will let review-WG members feel
> frustrated again and I don't think I can agree upon what you
> suggest here. If we try to work together, I don't think this
> should be the way. Instead, both of us are to be asked to step
> back equally rather than forcing one side to step back all the time.
>
> Therefore, I cannot agree upon your proposal this time, Philip.
> However, I am still open more fair proposal later.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ

> ===============================================
> IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR WORKING GROUP REVIEW
> Future timetable for the groups input
>
> Status
> 1. The DNSO comment period on the draft DNSO Review Report v. 2.0a ended
> February 11th.
>
> Next steps
> 2. Comments submitted from WG Review and others will be incorporated as
> appropriate by the chair of the Names Council Review Task Force (NCRTF)
into
> a draft version 3.  NCRTF comprises one representative from each of the
> seven NC constituencies. Version 3 will be validated by remaining members
of
> the NCRTF.
>
> 3. DNSO Review Report version 3 will then be sent to the ICANN Board
during
> week commencing 12 February 2001. This is in preparation for the Board's
> meeting in March in Melbourne and to allow time for an ICANN public
comment
> period.
>
> 4. As was mandated, the task of the Names Council Review Task Force,
> including a DNSO public comment period, will then be complete.
>
> 5. In order to ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board, all further
> comments from WG Review should be directed to the ICANN public comment
> website, when the ICANN public comment period begins.
>
> 6. At the closure of the ICANN public comment period the task of WG Review
> will be complete.
>
> Implementation
> 7. The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the final WG D
> report and from the Review process to develop a new process to implement
the
>
> recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in this
> implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the structure of
> participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO
> working groups!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Theresa Swinehart, Chair, DNSO Review Task Force
> YJ Parks, NC Liaison to the DNSO Working Group
> Philip Sheppard, NC Chair


[Appendix 2]

From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: Review process

> Greg,
> as proposed the message the NC would like to ask you to post the WG
review.
> Philip.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR WORKING GROUP REVIEW
> Future timetable for the groups input
>
> Status
> 1. The DNSO comment period on the draft DNSO Review Report v. 2.0a ended
> February 11th.
>
> Next steps
> 2. Comments submitted from WG Review and others has been incorporated as
> appropriate by the chair of the Names Council Review Task Force (NCRTF)
into
> a draft version 3.  NCRTF comprises one representative from each of the
> seven NC constituencies. Version 3 has been validated by remaining members
> of the NCRTF.
>
> 3. DNSO Review Report version 3 was received 18 February by the ICANN
Board.
> This is in preparation for the Board's meeting in March in Melbourne and
to
> allow time for an ICANN public comment period.
>
> 4. As was mandated, the task of the Names Council Review Task Force,
> including a DNSO public comment period, is now complete.
>
> 5. In order to ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board, all further
> comments from WG Review should be directed to the ICANN public comment
> website, when the ICANN public comment period begins.
>
> 6. At the closure of the ICANN public comment period the task of WG Review
> will be complete.
>
> Implementation
> 7. The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the final WG D
> report and from the Review process to develop a new process to implement
the
> recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in this
> implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the structure of
> participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO
> working groups!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Theresa Swinehart, Chair, DNSO Review Task Force
> Philip Sheppard, NC Chair

--
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