Re: [council] ICANN Advisory on Regland Lawsuit

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Hi YJ,

I  think you are misrepresenting or misunderstaanding my comments.  I have
never suggested that the NC delegated all its powers to Ken.  Rather, as I
said in my email, it was my understanding that the NC agreed to delegate to
Ken the authority to approve a media release.
While we might debate  the accuracvy of our respective memories or meeting
notes,  I don't think there is any question that, if any authority was
delegated to our Chair, it was delegated with the agreement of the NC for a
very limited purpose.

errica


----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: <mclaughlin@pobox.com>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Advisory on Regland Lawsuit


> 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.
>
>