Re: [council] Please make comments on

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

Dear Ken,

> 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.

According to AdCom teleconference today, Dany Vandromme is going to
come up with a proposal which will be reviewed by constituency later for
its endorsement.

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

I hope Dany and Elisabeth can coordinate this properly.:-)

> 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.

Yes, it's time for Names Council to consider this critical issue with
seriousness.

Regards,

YJ

> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>