Re: PRIVATE:[wg-review] Covering letter to WG-Review Report
on 4/16/01 2:55 AM, Sotiris at email@example.com wrote:
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>> Issue 3:
>> Inadequate and unfairly restricted access to DNSO mailing list
>> servers and other communications tools/systems which allow
>> easy and effective participation in the DNSO for all interested and
>> useful parties and groups.
>> Allocation of ICANN/DNSO resources to provide ongoing ML
>> servers and/ or forum capability for new WGs and committees. A
>> minimum of 6 should be made available immediately.
> Is the number 6 an arbitrary or intentional determination?
I can think of many more, but a limit of 6 seems a reasonable number to
start the roll-out. Selection would be made from a list that may include,
but is not limited to (and in no particular order):-
1) Review process (inc.WG review members)
2) New Constituencies (inc. Individuals)
3) Privacy (inc.WhOIS)
5a) Outreach and Education (english)
5b) Outreach and Education (spanish)
5c) Outreach and Education (French) etc....
6) Alternate Roots
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> Working Chair, WG Review
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html