Re: [council] Please make comments on

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

Theresa,

Thank you for your pertinent comments here.

> # 3: I support Ken's suggestion of requesting ICANN staff to report to the
> NC on the TLD expansion issue. I think this would be very useful.

I support this request under the condition that
more specified "Registry selection" process should be expounded.

> # 4: I am a little confused about the scope, and large amount of time
> allotted to this topic. I think that this is something that may be better
> addressed by a Task Force. I volunteer to come to the NC meeting in
Yokohama
> with a proposal outlining this suggestion. I know it's an issue that
Working
> Group D has also been made aware of.

Thank you for your volunteer.
However, if we can make a time slot for those who want to appeal against
NC's recommendation to the ICANN Board, it would be more reasonable.

> # 5: Working Group E has put much work into it's report. I have to agree
> that it has not been posted long enough for the NC, or at least for me, to
> be comfortable making specific recommendations or to take a public
position.
> I would like to ensure that it has, like other Working Group reports, been
> up for the equal comment time. If we start shortening comment time
> arbitrarily, we start ignoring our own decisions.
>
> # 6: I am not sure I understand what new working group formation proposal
> review means -- is this for a new working group, or just on overall
> formations? If the latter, that's something working group D should be
> involved with.

In this case, the former.

> # 7: Budget should be discussed, could we be sure everyone reviews the
past
> discussions so we can move through this and reach any decisions necessary.
>
> # 8: Developing countries perspective is important to discuss, as is I
> think, overall issue of making sure all regions' perspectives are included
> and addressed. Discussion should focus on what improvements to current
ways
> will ensure all regions are heard (e.g., should we consider translations
in
> our budget?) and what is it that we are not doing now that could be done
to
> continue to encourage participation.

We do have diversified representatives within the NC
which ironically has the same problem just like elsewhere in the ICANN
process.

Taking advantage of this opportunity, I look forward to hearing more
opinions
from other representatives as well as US representatives.

Regards,

YJ

> Theresa
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@dnso.org
> > [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Ken Stubbs
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 7:05 AM
> > To: council@dnso.org; YJ Park
> > Subject: Re: [council] Please make comments on
> >
> >
> > YJ and all
> >
> > we have just completed the 4th of July holiday weekend  (4
> > days) which is
> > probably our biggest holiday here in the USA. many of the
> > members have not
> > even returned to their homes and have been off e-mail for the
> > last few days.
> >
> > putting an arbitrary time limit on your proposed agenda would
> > not be at all
> > appropriate here. we should wait until Friday to give other
> > names council
> > members the opportunity to comment and make suggestions.
> >
> > let me make some comments on the proposed agenda items - not
> > necessarily in
> > order
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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 ?)
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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 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.
> >
> > it is also my understanding that the board may have some
> > additional items
> > they wish to put before the council for their
> > assistance & review.
> >
> > my very best wishes to you and I look forward to seeing you
> > in yokahama
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: YJ Park <yjpark@aptld.org>
> > To: <council@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:32 AM
> > Subject: [council] Please make comments on
> >
> >
> > > Dear Council,
> > >
> > > Due to time constraints and lack of responses to
> > > the coming Yokohama Names Council meeting
> > > where we are supposed to discuss tons of substantials issues,
> > > I am posting a draft agenda to have more productive meeting.
> > >
> > > If I can't hear further response from you within 24 hours,
> > > I will interpret this as your silent recognition and
> > > post this agenda to the relevant groups such as "GA"
> > > and 7 constituencies to deepen our discussion based upon
> > > their responses.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > YJ
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >                          Draft Agenda
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Place: Main Hall at Yokohama Pacifico Hotel
> > > Date: July 14, Friday 1300 - 1700
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 1. Roll Call
> > >
> > > 2. Agenda update
> > >
> > > 3. New Top Level Domains: The selection process
> > >     Any recommendation from Names Council Needed?
> > >     1310 - 1430
> > >
> > > 4.The relations between WGs and Names Council
> > >     based upon responses from WG-C.
> > >     1430 - 1530
> > >
> > > 5. Working Group E's Final Report
> > >     1530 - 1545
> > >
> > > 6. New Working Group Formation Proposal Review
> > >     1545 - 1600
> > >
> > > 7. Budget Issues.
> > >     1600 - 1630
> > >
> > > 8. Developing Coutries' perspective
> > >     1630 - 1650
> > >
> > > 9. AOB
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >                            [End of Message]
> > >
> > >
> >
>