Re: [council] One item more to be considered in the Review of theWGsreports

["YJ Park" <yjpark@aptld.org>]

Dear All,

> It also seems to me that the document is a comment on the working group
work,
> and therefore is more appropriately directed to the working group, not the
NC,
> as other working group comments have been.

I admit this paper which is a work in progress has been developed in the
working
group process however, it cannot be generalized as working group's comments.

Since it initiates a different movement that it's time to consider
the interests of those who have not been appropriately reflected in the
ICANN process.
"The Developing Countries."

> It's therefore my view that the NC can only view the document as an
> additional comment to WG B, just as were those WG-B received during its
> recently completed comment period.

Exactly to avoid this kind of generalization on the paper,
I circulated this to the names council list. This paper would go through
its own evolution process by many voluntary experts who committed to this.

Ironically, this kind of informational announcement was my whole purpose
to add this to agenda to let names council know where this discussion has
been
until it can be formally discussed in our next Names council teleconference
before Yokohama.

Appreciating all your attentions to this,
I look forward to hearing from more people for the broader participation.

Regards,

YJ

> Theresa
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> Digitel - Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 12:29 PM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve; council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] One item more to be considered in the Review of the
> WGsreports
>
> i am somewhat confused here by this post .
>
> what is expected from the council with respect to this item. ?
>
> this is the first opportunity i have had to be exposed to this position
> paper. i would like to know
> 1. who developed this paper ?
> 2. what organizations have signed on to this ?
> 3. how widely was the paper circulated in asia ?
> 4. how long was the paper exposed for comment in this region ?
> 5. what forum was used for exposing this paper ?
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> To: <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:56 AM
> Subject: [council] One item more to be considered in the Review of the WGs
> reports
>
>
> >
> > Collegues,
> >
> > I am requested by YJ Park to add one item more to be considered
> > in the Review of the WGs reports:
> >
> >     Developping Countries' stakes in the ICANN process
> >     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000508.DevCountries.WGB-WGC.html
> >
> > I added it to the NC telecon agenda as posted on the DNSO Website
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCtelecon-agenda.html
> >
> > Elisabeth
> >
>