Re: [council] ICANN Advisory on Regland Lawsuit

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Andrew wrote:

> Let me (or Louis) know if you have any questions.
>
> <http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03nov00.htm>

Yes, there are several procedural questions both to ICANN staff and council
and Nc's responsibility and roles in the new gTLD process.

Regarding Advisory Body, this website says;

On 29 September, ICANN's primary advisory body on domain name issues
- the Names Council of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization -
issued a statement warning consumers that .......

However, as all of you recall, as soon as this was out,
I raised the concern who are Names Council here in this document.
As I clarified earlier, I am not included nor consulted with at all in this
process.

Another concern is whether NC is expected to advise or not.

It appears that NC - I am not sure who I am talking about, though -
arbitrarily declares that NC provides advice such as pre-regiostration case
and
sometimes strongly denounces ne advisor role in this new gTLD process.

Let's suppose Erica's comment(below in her email) is right -

NC delegated all the power to Ken, a chair of NC
- I still have no idea where this came from - who sometimes
declares that NC has a right to advise and sometimes
disavows its responsibility by saying that NC has no input in new gTLD
process.

Therefore, my questions are
1. NC position can be posted without proper consultation with NC as a whole?
    If yes, could you kindly refer to its ground?

2. What's the NC's function in the new gTLD process?

    Advisory Body just as lawsuit describes?
    or Neutral Body which so-called fully delegated

YJ
============================================
FYI, I here attached all the relevant email exchanges NC has had.

From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <icann-announce@icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:06 AM

> To clarify this situation, this is not the Names Council document.
> This is the document voluntarily prepared by Paul(registrar constituency)
> and Philip(business constituency) together with ICANN staff, Louis and
> Andrew according to the teleconference on Sept. 19.
>
> During the Sept. 19 teleconference, the concern that this draft work
should
> be pre-circulated for the comments among Names Council was expressed.
> (Erica, registrar constituency) for further discussion.
>
> Therefore, I think it's premature to circulate this kind of document
> which was never tabled in the Names Council in advance and it starts
> with "names council warn......."

From: "erica.roberts" <erica.roberts@telstra.com>
To: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>; <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <icann-announce@icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:31 AM

> As I recall it, we agreed that Paul, Phillip and ICANN staff should draft
the
> release and that we delegated to Ken the power of final approval.

From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: "erica.roberts" <erica.roberts@telstra.com>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:53 AM

> First, I don't think this was the case according to my memory.
> You didn't mention anything about Ken and his full power of approval on
> this.
> At least, I was not included in the "we" delecgated.....
> How about other members?

From: Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:10:29 +0200 (CEST)

>Agree again with YJ
>Paul and Philip did volunteer for preparing a draft for this, but I do not
>remember that the automatic release was included, and certainly not that
>Ken would have alone the full power of approval, without reviewing the
>draft by the NC

From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@DNINET.NET>
To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 12:57 AM

> THE NAMES COUNCIL HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INPUT INTO THE TLD
> PROPOSAL DECISION PROCESS.     (PARDON THE SHOUTING !!)
> i have as much input into the decision process as you do michael or as any
> ga member or any member of any constituancy  or any of the 75,000 +
members.
> i can write e-mails, i can post comments (although i havent yet but will
in
> the near future) but that is as far as it goes.