[ncdnhc-discuss] comment: NC Task Forces

[Milton Mueller]

Yes, of course we on Names Council should inform 
you (NCDNHC members) of comment deadlines. 

In this case we did - an announcement
was sent both to the discuss list and the full-
membership announce list. But I agree with you
that such messages are easy to miss. Not sure
what to do about that except keep hammering
away on the discuss list....

You may be interested to learn that I had
to send a semi-angry note to DNSO Secretariat
to even get them to put the ORG call for
comments on the home page of the DNSO.

<sigh>

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 10/25/01 05:04AM >>>

>Adam:
>As much as I appreciate your willingness to make
>comments (and agree with the comments you make)

Milton, thanks,  Comments sent.

It's tough work following these closed task forces, waiting for the 
Names Council to allow us in...

>it is not very realistic for you to expect NC members
>to go through the unnecessary and wholly redundant
>process of forwarding everyone's emails to another
>address.

Would it be unrealistic to ask that you inform us of public comment 
deadlines and where we should send comments to -- or have the DNSO 
secretariat do it for you.  The DNSO website could be more helpful in 
providing information about approaching deadlines.

Coordinating constituency responses may not be a bad idea.

Adam





>Here is the relevant info for submitting comments:
>Review TF - public comments open 11 Oct 2001
>Review Report http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html 
>E-mail address for public comments comments-review at dnso.org 
>Archives http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc01/ 
>
>Just add comments-review at dnso.org into your
>email and send it directly to DNSO.
>
>--MM
>
>>>>  Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 10/24/01 07:44AM >>>
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011011.NCteleconf-minutes.html 
>
>>NC Task Forces
>>
>>-NC review interim report: Philip Sheppard said that this report was
>>now being circulated for public comment until October 28 when the TF
>>would look at the comments and produce the final report to be
>>submitted to the NC on November 4 2001.
>
>
>My comment:
>
>The task force system should be abolished and all DNSO policy making
>conducted through the open processes: working groups.
>
>Best I remember there was no support for the creation of these small
>closed Names Council driven "task forces" in the public DNSO review.
>The DNSO working group D (Bret Fausett) did not recommend the
>adoption of these closed and controlled groups.
>
>- - - -
>
>Perhaps other NCC members will have comments.
>
>Name Council representatives: could you please make sure all
>constituency member comments are forwarded to the Council before Oct
>28.
>
>It would also be helpful if you could try to give the constituency
>notice of comment deadlines and similar. If keeping track of key
>dates is difficult for you perhaps you could ask the DNSO secretariat
>to keep a timetable and just forward that periodically to the list
>(announcements?)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>Adam Peake
>GLOCOM Tokyo
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss