Re: [council] Please make comments on

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

thank you for your response.

ms rony's letter is does not necessarily represent any concensus position
and her comments are by no means necessarily accurate with respect to WG-B.

with respect to the position taken by the council on wg-c.... the board does
not operate in a vacuum here... they all have had the opportunity to avail
themselves of the wg-c report. the report was tendered to the council and we
reviewed both the report and the public comments. after significant
deliberation and discussion we were virtually unanimous with our opinions &
sucggestions to the board.

it is my understanding that the BOARD and only the board sets policy here.
that the function of the council is to provide advice and suggested
direction to the board which it may either elect to modify, accept in its
entirety or reject.  we did just that...

i too share your concern regarding the budget process but very frankly, i
have not heard any concrete proposal's from your constituancy (i assume that
the NCDNH is who you refer to) on how you would propose to deal with this
issue specifically.

i would hope that you would have something forthcoming to the secretariat in
the very near future

i too share the concern of the "developing" countries and feel that a
methodology needs to be worked out to assist them & provide assistance . the
"quiteness" i see from many of these countries appears in some cases to come
from differing cultural perspectives in how to deal with this process. we
need to be more sensitive to these perspectives.

ken stubbs



----- Original Message -----
From: YJ Park <yjpark@aptld.org>
To: <council@dnso.org>; Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@corenic.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Please make comments on


> Dear Ken,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> I do remeber "Independence Day" which is one of the most common
> backgrounds of many hollywood movies.:-)
>
> As you are concerned in the time-frame below, we are already
> left behind according to the schedule. If you felt a bit offended by my
> tight
> deadline(24 hours), I want to let you know I didn't mean it. The only
> concern
> at this moment is NC agenda should have been available two weeks
> in advance prior to its meeting. Therefore, if we can get responses
> from NC before Friday, I think it would be more reasonable to post
> it to the relavant groups to have more communications among NC, GA
> and constituencies.
>
> BTW, I hope you have had a great holiday.:-)
>
> Let me answer to you or just add some concerns here.
>
> > item # 3 I will ask ICANN staff to report to the council on the current
> > status of the TLD expansion issues and we will have the opportunity to
> > question them about the process at that time
>
> Sounds reasonable for ICANN satff to explain this with more details.
> However, if there is any input from constituencies or GA, we have to
> think of considering them, too.
>
> > item #4  please explain exactly what you are referring to here. I feel
> that
> > this topic is too vague and needs elaboration so that the members of the
> > council can decide on its merit as an agenda item. do you have any
> > proposal's here ? if so I believe it would be appropriate here to put
them
> > into writing and communicated to the other council members
>
> Proposal why the relations between WGs and NC should be dealt with
> [This should be more elaborated by other WG members or NC members]
>
> 1. There has been accumulated frustration within WG-C regarding NC's
>     reversed(which can be very subjectively interpreted) decision on WG's
>     report since last April's NC recommendation to the ICANN Board.
>
> 2. Such frustration has been developed into strong skepticism that
>     it is useless for Working Group members to work hard on reaching
>     "ROUGH CONSENSUS" which can be easily or arbitrarily reversed
>     in the NC meeting.
>
> 3. DNSO/ICANN process is in its initial stage which needs lots of
>     further Working Groups' works are urgently expected such as
>     "UDRP monitoring" working group which was suggested in LA.
>     However, if this community is filled with distrust and cynicism
>     how can we move forward in the future?
>
> 4. For the last, I am going to attach a message which carries such
> disppointed concern in WG vs NC.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Ellen Rony" <erony@MARIN.K12.CA.US>
> To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 6:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Squatters move in on NET names.
>
> > Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >
> > >Perhpas it's time to request that a WG be established?
> >
> > What have WGs ultimately accomplished? One was disbanded.  For anaother,
> > after a year of intense discussion, the consensus of WG-C to open up
6-10
> > new gTLDs was overlooked by the Names Council in favor of a much more
> > conservative plan.
> >
> > After 9 months of deliberations, WG-B was practically usurped in the
last
> > 15 minutes by the IPC, which submitted a Sunrise+20 Proposal on
deadline.
> >
> > Forget a working group for this.  It's a job for ObviousMan.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> [snip]
>
> > item#5 I feel it would be a good time to take a look at the WG E report
> here
> > but it has so far has only been posted for comment a bit less than 2
> weeks.
> > I feel it is too early for the council to make specific recommendations
or
> > take a public position as we could be criticized for not allowing
adequate
> > time for comments and their review.
> > in the past we have always allowed at least 4 weeks for this comment
> period
> > (a policy that the NCDHC constituency and you in particular have been
most
> > supportive of) and I personally do not feel it would be appropriate to
> > modify this policy at this time.  if the council wishes to make a
proposal
> > to modify future notice periods for items like this it would be a good
> time
> > to consider that proposal
>
> Yes, you are definitely RIGHT.
> It should have 4 weeks comment period. Hopely, more.:-)
> I put this on the table for the working group development report
> to NC with a very short time period.
>
> > item #7 this is an essential agenda item. we are well into our second
year
> > and still having issues like this on our plates.
> > hopefully staff and Elizabeth will have a brief report on the progress
> made
> > since the last meeting
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> > we need to be more specific with regard to the following areas
> > a. secretariat operation
> > b. specific methodology for receiving payments from constituencies
> > c. how do we deal with delinquent constituencies (I.e. monetary
penalties,
> > sanctions, loss of voting rights etc ?)
>
> This issue(c) may not be a smooth issue, so it is expected to share
> the different ideas among constituencies earlier than the meeting.
> Such as every constituency should share an equal contribution to
> DNSO regardless of commercial vs non-commercial?
>
> > item # 8 please elaborate a bit more on this topic. what do you feel we
> must
> > do here and how do you feel we can accomplish this
>
> Just like frustration of WG-C members in the DNSO/ICANN process,
> there has been visible(invisible) and audible(inaudible) frustration
> from developing countries regarding the way the policy has been
> established so far.
>
> It is a pity that we don't have any substantial solution to this at this
> very
> moment, however, I wish very thoughtful members of NC can go through
> this hurdle.
>
> > with respect to the proposal regarding the wg-c 6 items. I discussed
this
> > with staff and it is entirely too late for consideration at yokahama by
> the
> > board of items like Philip is proposing. I personally find no problem in
> > recognizing the relevance in the gtld consideration process  of the
items
> > specifically covered in the 4/11/00 consensus call item #2 but share the
> > same concerns elaborated in the wg-c chairs report of 4/17/00  that
"that
> > the principles (while well-meant) were not useful or meaningful, and
were
> > too vague and subjective to serve as technical requirements"
>
> I hope Philip can explain about this part.
>
> > I would also like to propose another agenda item as follows:
> >
> > after almost 2 years of DNSO operation I feel it would be a good idea
for
> > the names council to consider a little "self reflection" and take a
close
> > look at how we can make this body which represents such a diverse set of
> > interests sharing a universal commonality  more efficient and effective
in
> > the future.
>
> Totally AGREE. That's why I put item # 4 and item 8 to self-reflect
> ourselves
> for the future move.
>
> > it is also my understanding that the board may have some additional
items
> > they wish to put before the council for their
> > assistance & review.
>
> As far as I understand, the other way around.
> However, if there is any specific item the Board wants us to deal with,
> it would be no problem to take care of this.
>
> I hope I didn't mar your lingering holiday mood by this tight schedule
> agenda,
> I look forward to finalizing NC agenda as soon as possible.
>
> Regards,
>
> YJ
>
> > my very best wishes to you and I look forward to seeing you in yokahama
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >