DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Re: [wg-review] WG Review and the future review process

Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Message to WG Review
> The work of WG Review has been greatly appreciated and the interest
> expressed by Sotiris Sotiropoulos  to continue with the review process is
> also good news.

Thank you for the encouraging words Philip, I am
now more interested than ever in ensuring that the
"bottom up" mandate of the ICANN is adhered to,
and effectively represented in all forums, levels,
and organizations that relate to its structure and
> The execution of recommendations from the Review process is a part of the NC
> business plan and an interim group has been formed to recommend terms of
> reference and means of outreach for this.

Just a couple points of clarification, if you
don't mind, Philip.  

Of course, you don't mean to say that the
formation of the "interim group" to which you
refer above, precludes the WG-Review from
submitting its own proposal(s) as per Resolutions
01.28 & 01.29 of the BoD?  

Also, would you mind naming the members of the
interim group, and directing those interested to
their work in progress?  I, for one, would like to
be party to such a discussion, and I'm sure many
of the other Members of the WGr would also
appreciate such an opportunity.
> The work of the existing WG Review (whose terms of reference were to
> contribute to the consulting phase of the review process) will come to a
> close 16 April. 

Thank you for confirming the deadline date.  This
certainly underlines the urgency in getting the
WGr's proposal(s) to the BoD on time.   

>At this date the list will close and subscribers will be
> transferred to the GA Announce list as is usual practice. General discussion
> will continue on the main GA list.
> In addition, individuals who are keen to do more will soon see a new
> opportunity for this. Opportunities to contribute to issues relevant to the
> NC as its exists today and a longer term restructuring will be separate.

One more clarification: Does the last sentence
mean that those "individuals who are keen to do
more" will not have the opportunity "to contribute
to issues relevant to the NC as its exists today
and a longer term restructuring"?  Forgive me for
asking, but I would like to make sure nobody
misunderstands this final point, as it appears
somewhat ambivalent.


Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Working Chair, WG Review

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>