ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] Response to case for reform - TOR


i too am comfortable with that goal
 
ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Response to case for reform - TOR

Fine by me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:51 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Response to case for reform - TOR

J Scott and Marilyn, I agree completely that our goal is to propose alternate proposals. I thought I captured this under the Framework. Apologies if that was not clear.

"Frame work

  • Functions of ICANN, guiding principles of those functions.
  • Structure the report by subject area (see below)
  • Response to Lynn analysis and proposed solution
  • Alternative solutions"
In order to format those alternate proposals I have suggested categorising by subject area. Under each subject area I had listed the key Lynn proposals. Our job is to say yes or no to those and then add our alternate proposals under each subject area. Is this OK?
 
Philip
 


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