[council] Re: NC's UDRP WG

[KathrynKL@aol.com]

Ah, I see your concern, and would normally agree.  However, Professor Mueller 
has officially been designated as my alternate in the NC by the NCDNHC 
(replacing Randy Bush).  Thus, he will be participating in this discussion 
whenever I am unavailable.  

I should also note that as my proxy, Professor Mueller volunteered to 
participate in this NC subgroup back in LA, and his name and indeed our 
NCDNHC presence on this important subgroup was lost.  This is bad precedent 
within the Names Council and engenders bad feeling within the Constituencies. 

Again, I cannot accept Ted's proposal that the NCDNHC only review whatever 
proposal the IPC and BC provide us, and not serve as a full-fledged 
participant in the process of devising the monitoring group and standards.  
We volunteered upfront to be a full-fledged part of the process and we have 
reminded you of our commitment.  With the existence of the first case in the 
UDRP system, let's move forward with the substance of the matter quickly. 

I should also note that I am surprised that a private email discussion 
between the subgroup was forwarded to the Council.  I would request that more 
care be taken in the future.   

Kathy

> 
>  It was my understanding that at this stage the NC is simply setting up a
>  proposed charter for such a WG and that according to the bylaws, the "NC"
>  shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out its
>  responsibility for the management of the consensus building process of the
>  DNSO, including the designation of such research or drafting committees,
>  working groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines appropriate to
>  carry out the substantive work of the DNSO."  Therefore, I believe it would
>  be inappropriate for Milton to be participating at this stage.