Re: [council] Re: [nc-intake] LA agenda

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@revenue.com>]

given louis touton's comments in los angeles regarding names council
relationship to the ICANN decision making process, i would suggest that we
keep any items regarding this decision making process off of the agenda.

it would not be appropriate for the names council to be used as a forum for
advocating any constituancy's position of the proposals before the board.
our position has been clearly stated and i feel we should stay consistant
with this mandate.

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; "DNSO Intake"
<nc-intake@dnso.org>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 2:12 PM
Subject: [council] Re: [nc-intake] LA agenda


> Philip wrote on Oct. 16
>
> > So before LA we must write them. Will you do a first draft? I am happy
to
> > provide second step editing !!
>
> First of all, thanks a lot for your hard works here, Philip.
>
> > So, the LA agenda could be:
> > 1. First results of Review process.
> > 2. Outline Business Plan and discussion on detail.
> > 3. Announcement of UDRP task force, draft terms of reference,
refinements
> of
> > those terms
>
> Philip wrote on Oct. 20 after NC teleconference
>
> > I. Result of DNSO Review Questionnaire
> > II. Names Council Business Plan
> > III. (Possible) NC Report on New TLDs and IP
> > IV. New TLDs and Whois
>
> I want to clarify couple of things here regarding agenda items before we
> settle.
>
> 1. How do we decide who are which constituency?
>     i.e. I have clearly expressed every committee should have each
different
>     constituency member to have more balanced views.
>
> From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:06 AM
>
> > Plus, to reflect all the different perspectives from "seven"
> constituencies,
> > I suggest from now on all the various committtees within the Names
Council
> > should include each representative from each constituency in a more open
> > and transparent manner except thir clear expression of non-involvement.
>
>     However, it's still unclear who are in the committee on New TLDs and
IP.
>     Pointing out that every committee has to include each constituency
>     representative especially the request is made clearly and I hereby
noted
>     that NCC wants to be in this committee. This will be consulted with
> other
>     NCC adcom members and as a default, you can count me in.
>
> 2. The Boundary should be pre-articulated before we discuss Whois
>
>     There have been many worries on ICANN's mission creep and this might
>     be a critical moment that ICANN should establish a line of
demarcation.
>
>     Therefore, I would like to suggest that this committee should describe
>     its methodology which will prevent ICANN's unconscious or conscious
>     governance expansion.
>
>     Plus, NCC also want to work in this committee with the same condition.
>