Re: [council] Next meeting - WGC and budget

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>]

hello Philip...

it was my understanding that the function of the working groups was to
develop ideas and approaches to dealing with problems and proposals tasked
to it.  these groups were open to all interested parties and have had a
broad spectrum of participation. the reports generated are now out for
public comment and it is our responsibility to use this information
presented to us and take from it those areas we can find a specific
direction from.

both of these groups have been in operation for well over 6 months and in
the case of working group c there are specific consensus point which have
been developed . for example; there is consensus that there is a need for
responsible expansion for new gtld's.. the problem is that there is
contention  between the various parties on how many and how fast.

I find no reason to not consider stating these facts in a report to the
board and at the same time reminding them that the protection of famous
marks and names is essential in any consideration on how to deal with this
expansion.

as a names council member I feel it is my responsibility to get this
information before the board with our opinions and there may very well be
situations where we can find only consensus on certain portions of any
reports or proposal presented to us.

ken stubbs
p.s. as a member of the registrar constituency, I am concerned about a
responsible process and fully aware that steps must be take to assure that
expansion be done in a very measured, responsible fashion. I am also aware
that many people attribute the most active scenario to the wg-c report (I.e.
6-10 tld's) and frankly this scares the hell out of them. I personally
advocate for a slower approach utilizing a form of "measured transition"
starting with
a VERY LIMITED NUMBER of tlds (say one generic "tld"  and one non-commercial
or personal "tld") . I would think that these could be initiated in a
monitored and measured way and guidelines for evaluation put in place to
assure that the next steps COULD NOT BE TAKEN  until the board was assured
that the process was being responsibly managed  & totally under control.


----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
To: 'Ken Stubbs' <kstubbs@corenic.org>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Next meeting - WGC and budget


> WGC report
> I agree with Caroline. I cannot see what meaning can be given to a vote on
a
> DNSO working group. Group members are self-appointed. So any ideas can
only
> be indicative - never representative.  The Names Council must view any WG
> report as a set of options for the representative Names Council to
discuss.
>
> Budget
> As a member of the budget group, I have asked Elisabeth to provide a
> breakdown of the budget so that we can isolate the minimum costs of
running
> a secretariat for the NC and the additional costs associated with the GA,
> transparency obligations and travel.
>
> On this topic - and echoing Dennis statement at the NC meeting in Cairo -
I
> do not believe we should incur any costs for web casting of future
> teleconferences until we have the finance to do so. If anyone disagrees -
> would they be willing to sponsor? Adequate and concise transparency will
be
> achieved by the web publication of the meeting summary.
>
> Philip
>
>