Re: [wg-review] Names Council input

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Can anyone give a reason why this should not be so?
Sincerely,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Jefsey Morfin wrote:-
> 4. the WG-Review stays as the permanent place where to discuss new ideas.
>
> I agree this makes sense. If and when DNSo is perfect, then, and only then,
> can WG-Review Group possibly be considered redundant. It would be natural
> for WG-Review's life to be extended for the foreseeable future, including
> for the purpose of providing checks and balances on DNSO activities (or even
> lack thereof). I suggest this would add much needed credibility to policy
> recommendations emanating from the DNSO NC, something which I understand the
> BoD has noted by its absence in the past.
>
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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