Re: [nc-str] Final terms of reference
Thank you very much. It seems that you understood my concerns.l
At 08:31 a.m. 30/11/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>I don't wish to delay things here or be obstructive but I am concerned
>that what was an unadvertised informal meeting with less than full
>attendance has seemingly made decisions without reference back to the
>full Taskforce. This is hardly operating in accordance with ICANN
>bylaws of transparency.
>I had no problem with such informal meeting doing a brainstorming of a
>draft TOR which then come forward to the formal Taskforce. However
>the above statements suggest the informal meeting made decisions which
>are not open to revisiting and are binding.
>It would be more helpful for those who were in LA to supply the
>reasons why they think a certain way, rather than merely announce this
>has been considered and rejected.
>I don't wish to be blamed for the TF to miss any deadline as they are
>so tight anyway so will not relitigate those decisions, but am placing
>on the record my concern at the process.