[council] First Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0
Thanks for your works, Theresa.
There are several points I want to clarify and add more comments
to your version 1.0 DNSO Review Report which was circulated
two days ago.
1st. Your below description regarding time schedule might bring
some misunderstanding on DNSO Review Working Group's
request to extend its working days which this group still can't hear
from NC clearly and its real situation regarding the working days.
To be precisely WG-Review has had "13 substantial working days"
until January 15th report if we don't count public holidays and
Saturdays and Sundays since it was announced on Dec 22nd and
23rd and work could take off from Dec. 23.
"24 working days" until January 15th report comes out including
public holidays and Saturday and Sunday.
Even though NC decided to form a WG-Review at the Marina del
Rey Names Council Meeting, the formation itself has been delayed
since there were serious concerns expressed whether that motion was
not clear enough to form WG-Review or not, which has been time
consuming and took almost more than a month.
Therefore, this WG-Review has had two pre-stages:
It took "Five-months" from Yokohama meeting to Marina del Rey
meeting to give a try for NC to come up with NC's own
recommendation to the Board without having working group process.
It took another one month from Marina del Rey until Dec 19 (the decision
itself) for NC to figure out whether NC really wants to form this group or
Out of Theresa's report
At the Marina del Rey Names Council Meeting the new time-line for
completion of the report was discussed, and shortly thereafter finalized.
The new deadline for comments was adjusted to accommodate this,
with new date set for 15 January 2001. This was again extended to
January 15th to accommodate the schedule of the DNSO Review
Therefore, the new time-line you mentioned here is about the deadline
for Review TF, which was suggested Jan. 9th by you, if my memory is
correct at the MdR Meeting, and then later another request from you
to extend the date until Jan 19th was made recently and you made a
report this on Jan 22, which doesn't have to do with any extension of