Re: [wg-review] 5. [Working Group] Report requested by NC

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Roeland wrote:

> The WG's are the only thing that has been shown to work. I don't see the
> difference between a WG and a TF. IOW, they are synonymous, IMHO. Thus
far,
> while a WG may not meet all of its objectives, it does seen to always
reach
> a consensus.

WGs within the DNSO have been deployed since 1999 June.

    WG A: UDRP
    WG B: Famous Marks
    WG C: New gTLDs
    WG D: Business Plan
    WG E: Outreach and Awareness
    WG F: Review - DNSO/ICANN
    :
    :

TFs within the Names Council have been deployed after 2000 July.

    Review Task Force(or Committee)
    Intake Task Force
    Budget Task Force
    Outreach Task Force
    :
    :

Thanks,
YJ

Issues on Working Groups:

> > · Are the working groups an appropriate mechanisms to foster
> > consensus in
> > the DNSO?
> >
> > · If the NC can't find consensus in a working group report,
> > what should be
> > the next step?
> >
> > · Are there mechanisms other than working groups that the NC
> > should employ
> > in managing the consensus-development process? For example,
> > assigned task
> > forces?