RE: [council] Minutes from 19 October NC teleconference

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

YJ, I appreciate your sense of humor- and diplomacy ;-)

your voice (and that of your constituency) will help keep us alert and
awake!

peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
YJ Park
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:42 AM
To: Digitel - Ken Stubbs; council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] Minutes from 19 October NC teleconference


Hello Ken,

> i was not referring to your proposals being a breach of icann by laws . i
> was only referring to the act of  including the specific proposals
mentioned
> as a part of the minutes as being a possible breach of the bylaws.
>
> i apologize for not making myself clear enough in the previous e-mail

It is always fun to work together in this potential email-misunderstnding
and email-miscommunication environment, which I am sure will make us
more ready to listen to the other party with all ears and imaginary eyes.:-)

Thank you,
YJ

> best wishes
>
> ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>; <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [council] Minutes from 19 October NC teleconference
>
>
> > Hello Ken,
> >
> > > the names council minutes minutes are a formal record of the actual
> > meeting.
> > > i have never heard of attaching personal comments to minutes after the
> > fact.
> > > it is my understanding that the sole function of minutes is to
chronical
> > the
> > > meetings to which they relate and that post-comments  and observations
> by
> > > non attendees could not be included.
> > >
> > > i also queried our own corporate counsel on this subject and he was of
> the
> > > same opinion
> >
> > Humm... Thank you for clarifying this and I believe your corporate
> counsel's
> > advice is right.
> >
> > > i do not believe we can do this. i would also guess that the action
you
> > > propose might not be consistant with icann interpretations of bylaws
> etc.
> >
> > However, I cannot still understand the co-relations
> > between the actions I proposed and the chance to breach icann bylaws.
> >
> > 1. Update from Review Committee chair after her report to the Board.
> > 2. Request for Whois Committee's interim report and its openness.
> > 3. The clear understanding on constituenccies' resolutions circulation
in
> >     F2F NC meeting as well as the other fora after constituencies'
> meetings.
> >
> > The above three are actions I proposed and can you elaborate more
> > why they might not be consistant with icann interpretations of bylaws.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > YJ
> >
> > > best wishes
> > >
> > > ken
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> > > To: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > > <council@dnso.org>
> > > Cc: <nc-review@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:16 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [council] Minutes from 19 October NC teleconference
> > >
> > >
> > > > There are several inquiries regarding Oct teleconference where
> > > > I could not attend due to my long flight.
> > > >
> > > > Request to Elisabeth,
> > > > Can you please add my post-comments to the minutes with apology
> > > > regarding 2nd, Whois committee and 3rd, the resolution circulation?
> > > >
> > > > 1st, Review Committee Status Report
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Louis Touton noted that Theresa Swinehart was scheduled
> > > > to report to the ICANN Board the day after the NC meeting
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Can we have further update regarding this from Theresa?
> > > > Thanks in advance, Theresa.
> > > >
> > > > 2nd, Whois Committee
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Whois committee is to develop some ideas and pass them to the
> > > > NC or to the ICANN staff, depending on whether the ideas involved
> > > > new policy or implementation of existing policy.
> > > >
> > > > The group includes registrar/registry and intellectual property
> > interests.
> > > > To the extent that the report raises issues for decision that
involve
> > > > new policy rather than implementation of existing policy...
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I have some concerns regarding this committee.
> > > >
> > > > Due to lack of time during the MdR NC meeting, this has not been
> > > > discussed enough and no interim report has been presented, either.
> > > > Therefore, it would be appreciated to have such a report asap,
> > > > if it's available.
> > > >
> > > > My first concern,
> > > > Appreciating staff-driven Whois committee's works so far,
> > > > every implementation issue is very likely to be asociated with
> > > > policy issues and that's why it should be open as much as possible.
> > > >
> > > > My second concern,
> > > > I think it's time to open this committee to all the constituencies.
> > > > Even though most topics are limited to registrar/registry and
> > > > intellectual property interests, the decisions on either
> implementation
> > > > or policy are supposed to have serious impacts to the users, too.
> > > >
> > > > That's why DNSO included these groups from the beginning.
> > > >
> > > > 3rd, The resolution circulation
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Louis Touton commented that resolutions made could be forwarded
> > > > to the NC and could then be presented at the Public Forum.
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > It would be great to notify each constituency that this procedure is
> > > > already set up in the NC. Since there have been some confusions
> > > > whether this is possible or not from time to time.
> > > >
> > > > YJ
> > > >
> > > > > The minutes from 19 October NC teleconference, drafted by Rebecca
> > > > > Nessen, verified over Thanksgiving week-end by Louis Touton,
> > > > > and re-read this sunny Paris Sunday by myself are in:
> > > > >     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001019.NCtelecon-minutes.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I do hope you will be happy with it, if no addition/comment before
> > > > > next Friday, 1 December, I will distribute to all DNSO lists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note the next two NC teleconferences will be held on:
> > > > >        Tuesday 19 December 2000 and Wednesday 24 January 2001
> > > > > it is time to submit agenda suggestions to the Intake Committee.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Elisabeth
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>