[wg-review] Re Clarification on Deadline

["YJ Park \(MINC\)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Theresa,

> I've read the string of messages under this subject heading and am
somewhat
> surprised to see that there remains some confusion about the deadline for
> the working group's report per it's mandate. The revised deadline has been
> known since the working group's establishment, and reminders were sent
out.

I hope you are not surprised to see my further clarification on this any
more.

> For your convenience, I've attached for the working group the reminder
sent
> to you as Chair of this working group on the deadline for the working
> group's comments based on it's mandate (a reminder of the revised deadline
> was also sent to each constituency representative, GA chair and co-chair,
> the task force receiving comments from all, and the NC).

I have also attached for you and working group the reply to sent to you
as Chair of Review Task Force on the deadline for Review Working Group.

> As you know, the adjustment made in the schedule for the DNSO review is to
> accommodate the working group's deadline of Jan. 15th, as set when the
> working group and it's mandate were established.

That's the part I have had no idea why we had to stick to the strange
January
deadline. According to you, it sounds like the Board wants NC to come up
with its recommendation report or whatever on this issue "ASAP" after
Yokohama,
which could not beeen done properly by NC for more than five months without
any this bottom-up discussion approach.

That's how this review working group has been authorised to do its
substantial
works which they have done with focus and passion trading off their holidays
due to strangely set its initial deadline or whatever. And you, as Chair of
Reviw TF,
has been asking this group to work for less than a month which you have
realized
NC could not do with more than five months, which is NOT "right".

As member of this Review WG, you also have seen Review WG's timeframe,
from discussion into the road to reach its final position paper, will take
more
time than that.

Taking advantage of some board members' involvements with this group,
I also want to ask them to clarify what really the Baord wants.

1) NC Review Task Force's report based upon
    initial-stage of Review Working Group's discussion wrap-up

2) NC Review Task Force's report based upon
    full-range of Review Working Group's discussion report

3) The final report by NC Review Task Force based upoun
    WG's full-range discussion with a process that NC's recommendation
    to the Board is agreeable by the WG which has provided its contribution.

Thanks,
YJ

> Thanks
>
> Theresa
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of YJ Park (MINC)
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 11:35 AM
> > To: YJ Park (MINC); jo-uk@rcn.com; J J Teernstra
> > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested
> >
> >
> > > > Who is doing proposals as per YJ and what form do they take?
> > > > Does the questionnaire have to be completed by Monday, or is the
> > proposed
> > > > completion date now February 2Oth?
> > >
> > > We should do it until Feb 20th.
> >
> > Sorry for using "until" again in this context ....
> > I am not suggesting this should be wrapped up.
> >
> > On Feb. 20, review WG's first interim or progress report will be
submited
> > to NC until this group finishes its mission.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > YJ

----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
Cc: <nc-review@dnso.org>; "'names council'" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: [nc-review] Re: Working Group report

Hello all,

Let me remind your position paper schedule of this working group.

=======================================
Jan 5 - Jan 9:
Call for Position Paper on each topic, 13 topics until Jan 9.
=======================================

Due to this group's limited discussion on 13 topics under limited time,
I have made two requests to NC and especially chair of NC
review Task Force. First, let review working group submit its
progress report especially regarding constituencies and possibly
others if wg can have enough responses from members.

Second, let review working group have enough working days
which has been seconded by Peter(Feb. 20) in the NC list.

FYI, I attached the below message to nc-review task force and nc.


----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
Cc: <nc-review@dnso.org>; "'names council'" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: [nc-review] Re: Working Group report


> Hello Theresa,
>
> > I hope that you had a good holiday, and that all is well.
>
> Thank you for your consideration and hope you had a good one, too.
> As I told you in my earlier message, I was supposed to have my long-
> waiting holidays from Dec. 21 until Jan 7 which has made me neither
> work on review working group properly nor have true-sense holidays.
>
> > This note is just to remind you in your capacity as the Chair of the
> Review
> > Working Group that the report is due on January 15th. The Working Group
> > report should address the issues under the Working Groups mandate as
> > contained in the announcement of the working group December 21, 2000.
The
> > report should also include any relevant documentation to support it's
> > conclusions. As The Task Force will of course also look at the Working
> Group
> > archives, but the report submitted should include all relevant material.
>
> The approval to join review working group requests have been made up to
> around 300 and 100 or so out of them unsubscribed to the list due to
> overwhleming traffic.
>
> Taking advantage of this, I want to show my sincere respects to those
> who have participated in this process despite their holidays.
>
> The Review Task Force's questionaire was circulated in the form of 10
> subtitles on Dec 27 and three new subjects were added to this by members.
>
> Currently, the discussion has focused on specifically structure -
> constituencies
> along with funding issues and fundamental question about decision-making
> process
> - consensus or majority votes ....
>
> > The final DNSO Review report submitted to ICANN will, of course, include
> all
> > relevant documentation  as a package accompanying the Report. I have
> > attached the reminder note on schedule as well, for your convenience.
>
> Theresa, can I suggest review working group submit its progress review
> report
> to the Names Council especially regarding "constituencies" on January 15th
> since
> this is the issue which seems to have its substantial responses from the
> members.
>
> > Thank you for all your hard work as Chair of the Review Working Group.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation as chair of Review TF regarding this
process,
> I once again ask you and Names Council to reconsider extending its working
> days which can make members come up with true-sense report abiding by
> the procedural rules.
>
> Thank you and regards,
> YJ
>
> > Look forward,
> >
> > and kind regards,
> >
> > Theresa
> >
> >
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html











--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html