[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends voting restrictions,fewerAt-Large di rectors

[Milton Mueller]

Adam:

<in a very tired voice...> No, I do not think it is possible to go back to 
working groups.

I bumped my head up against that wall for the first three months
of my term on the NC, and I've given up. There is no support
for it in other constituencies. 

What happened to the results of WG-D? It is being honored in
the breach, mainly, but the current NC-review Task Force 
(which you can't participate in, nyaah, nyaah) allegedly
is trying to incorporate its findings into a new method. But I
think the results will look more like Task Forces than WGs.

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 08/31/01 10:05AM >>>
>
>>2. would you proclaim dead the present stage of discussion about .org,
>>or do you as NC member, or our other reps and AdCom members,
>>propose to move it on somehow?
>
>Dead? Are you joking? ORG divestiture is now in a Names Council Task
>Force (TF), chaired by me. The constituency has indicated where it
>stands on that issue; when the TF does something I will pass it
>to the constituency for comment. Expect a public comment period
>on the issues after Montevideo.


Do you think you could kill this closed task force process and start 
an open working group?

The Names Council has a taken an enormous step backwards in its 
obsession with these private task force groups.  What happened to the 
results of Working Group D?

Thanks,

Adam