[council] RE: NC's UDRP WG

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

In the future, please mark your emails "private" and I would be happy to
oblige.  Unless otherwise indicated and when it relates to the NC as a
whole, I follow the open and transparent policy.

I have what I think is a legitimate question out on the table about the
issue you raised about having a non-NC member participating in the
formation/defining stages of a Working Group (rather than having one of your
fellow NC representatives from the NCDNHC take your place in your absence).
I do not know the right answer since I for one will agree that the bylaws
are not crystal clear on this point.  I have thus asked my fellow NC
representative's input on this issue.  Maybe it is a non-issue or it is
clear and I am just missing the boat (would not be the fist time), and if
so, I apologize for the inconvenience of this detour. 

Finally, I wish to confirm that all this committee is directed to do is set
up the framework of a new working group on this issue, it does not represent
the working group itself. I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on
this point.

Caroline

-----Original Message-----
From: KathrynKL@aol.com [mailto:KathrynKL@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:43 PM
To: chicoinc@pepermartin.com; Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org;
Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Cc: mueller@syr.edu; council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: NC's UDRP WG 


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.