DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] for Task Force review dnso review report draft version 3.0


Please find attached the revised version of the DNSO review draft report.
This version seeks to include comments received during the public comment
period, which are primarily included in the footnotes, text, and in the
annex at the end. The recommendations have also been revised a bit to
reflect comments received. The text has been tightened up a bit as well.

PLEASE NOTE, per time line this report will next go to the ICANN Board, and
this circulation is for the Task Force to review the report again, with the
inclusion of the public comments (i.e, public comments included into version
2.0a), before it is forwarded to the Board. As a reminder, the Board will
again post it for public comment.

In order to allow time to read through the revised document, the deadline
for Task Force comments, and inclusion into the text, of Friday, February
16, COB, is recommended. We are already slightly delayed in getting this to
the ICANN staff, due to my own schedule and some unanticipated other
commitments, as well as some specific inquires needed to address some
comments. The reason the ICANN staff needs the report is to allow a fair
ICANN public comment period, which I think is in the interest of all! :-)

A few points to facilitate task force review by Friday COB....

1) Please focus your comments on this report, and where possible, specify
where the change or edit should go.

2) Since this is a TASK FORCE report, substantive changes will need to be
supported by Task Force members. If a member does not agree with a
substantive change, then please note so, and the report can reflect there is
a minority opinion, or footnote indicating not full support to a change.

3) suggestions on stylistic changes are also welcome.. i.e., there is no
pride of authorship here :-)

As with any written document, it is still not perfect of course (and there
are areas needing filling in, if anyone has the answer, please do let the
list know), but in my role as chair I've tried to provide the Task Force
with a revised draft to work from. I.e., there is no pride of authorship

Thank you in advance for input,



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>