RE: [council] Re: NC's UDRP WG

["Shapiro, Ted" <Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org>]

Kathy,

Your presence has not been lost. As I noted before, nothing has happened
yet. I merely suggested that I prepare the first draft (since I brought the
proposal that we look at this issue to the NC), which I planned to pass to
on to you and the BC before submission to the full NC. Since this seems
unacceptable to you, we will have to devise a new way of initiating the
process. With respect to the issue of proxies, while it is clear that NC
members can use proxies for meetings that they can't attend, does this
extend to have them serving on "subgroups" (or whatever we choose call to
them) and carrying out NC member duties? 

As I believed that there would be one more NC telecon before 15 January, I
had hoped to present something to the NC by then. However, as this does not
appear to be case, I note that I will no longer be a NC member as of 15
January, and therefore will have to have one of the new IPC NC reps replace
me in this project.

BR, TED 


-----Original Message-----
From: KathrynKL@aol.com [mailto:KathrynKL@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 7:43 PM
To: chicoinc@PeperMartin.com; Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org;
Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Cc: mueller@syr.edu; council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] 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.