[wg-review] RE: Mandate of WG
Kent, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion quite yet, Joanna :) [Joanna Lane] I will keep an open mind, but it doesn't seem much of a
jump to me, if any at all.
On 12:02 PM 12/27/00, YJ
Park said:
[Issue 4] If I remind Review WG members as liaison chair from NC, this working group has been recommended by NC to start coming up with a full-scale recommendation paper to the NC Review Task Force's questionaire. [Joanna Lane]
This could be taken as a snip from the original mandate whereby Ms Park felt the
need to remind people of this particular section, at least that's the way I read
it. Also, there is no comment about this being a change of mandate from the
one published 4 days earlier.
So we have this, and the
chair of the NC participating without challenging the appropriateness of the
mandate itself -
....it's not what Philip has suggested it is, perhaps. I would like to call attention to the phrase "full-scale recommendation paper" in particular, and the statement that the NC is expecting us to do that. [Joanna Lane] "Full scale recommendation" could be a shorthand summary for the balance of tasks more particularly detailed in the mandate of 12/23, at least that's the way I read it. I don't buy into this document being a different NC approved mandate for the simple reason that it isn't flagged as such or sufficiently comprehensive. Actually.......unless a press release is the "approved terms of reference" there doesn't seem to be any other published. The following was attached to an NC list post made on December 21st with the header "Press Release", by Philip Sheppard. It's a Word document - it's not viewable directly in the archives. Since no minutes of the meeeting on the 19th have been published (as far as I'm aware) we really have no way of knowing how this was developed, or whether the press release as such are the working terms for the group as understood by the names council. Since YJ published her pre-meeting material as the process for us to work with, I have to assume it was NOT so understood by the credited co-author of the release. [Joanna
Lane] I agree. Also, one could reasonably expect the "approved terms
of reference" to be published in the place in which it is to be addressed, aka
the wg-review list, and this press release was not. It was issued by direct
email prior to formation of the WG and members could reasonably be expected to
believe that a mandate published subsequently and directly to the wg-review list
would naturally supercede such a press
release.
"December 21, 2000 To get additional input into a review of its own consensus-building procedures, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) at its December 19 meeting established a Review Working Group charged with actively seeking input from the widest possible set of Internet stakeholders. The new working group, chaired by Names Council member Y J Park, is established immediately and seeks to complete its work by January 15th 2001. In common with previous DNSO work groups, the group is open to anyone to participate and operates by e-mail." "Interested parties are encouraged to sign-up now by sending an email to majordomo@dnso.org with the words subscribe wg-review in the body of the message. The working group will provide additional answers to an extensive questionnaire developed by a task force of Names Council members with a mandate to improve the decision-making process of the Names Council by more effective outreach. The task force has already made two calls for input to its questionnaire from DNSO constituencies and its general assembly. This final call is intended to improve the quality and quantity of input as a function of the interactive nature of a DNSO working group." Of course, the statement that the WG is open to anyone who wants to participate is simply not correct. As you say, unfortunate circumstances, but if these could be viewed as The question, actually, is "which version of the group mandate is misleading". [Joanna Ball] and "can Ms Park throw some light on this confusion?" Regards,
Joanna
|