RE: [council] Draft minutes of NCtelecon,24 Jan 2001,for validation by the NC
There was dialogue on this, Maca can perhaps point you to the exchanges.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> YJ Park (MINC)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:39 PM
> To: email@example.com; 'Maca Jamin'
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft minutes of NCtelecon, 24 Jan 2001,for
> validation by the NC
> Hello Maca and council members,
> Can you please update my withdrawal as I requested earlier?
> Review TF has been triying to be more organized these days however,
> the record should be recorded correctly as of January 24 for the future.
> From: "YJ Park" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Maca Jamin" <Maca.Jamin@wanadoo.fr>
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO
> Review Report version 1.0
> > Hello Maca,
> > To avoid further miscommunication, let me more clarify what I
> have asked.
> > My withdrawal is related with comment on Theresa.
> > However, other objective comment should be remaining such as lack of
> > procedure and so on.
> > Thanks,
> > YJ
> Therefore, my concerns in lack of "open process" and "formal channel of
> discussion" in the Review TF were not withdrawn at all.
> > Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent her apologies and asked to
> > the observation (see above) she made at this point at the meeting.
> So, your description above can bring misunderstanding to
> those who have had little background on this process.
> Thank you,