Re: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group

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

Hello Caroline,

It sounds like you can properly handle this issue with a baby inside.
I have been hesitating due to "prenatal culture" practice in Asia
and hope your baby can opt to listen to "RIGHT" things in this process.:-)

> The minute I was informed of the confusion (thanks to Ken and Roberto) 
> I sent a note to the Berkman staff regarding what my intended meaning 
> of my motion was.  I was told rather than edit the minutes, they 
> would note all versions of interpretation.  Again, my motion dealt 
> directly with the items in the email I mentioned, I did not intend to 
> intrude upon the work the DNSO Review Committee was doing.

I think we miss the real points here.

[1st point]

According to my common sense, when people change especially 
meeting minutes which can provoke controversy later due to lack of 
consulations process with the relevant parties or those who have similar 
or opposite stakes regarding such a specific discussion, you 
"should have discussed" the changes before you proceeded it.

Therefore, I do propose from now on when it comes to the NC's
post-meeting minutes changes, NC should set some formalities.

Compared to the formaility discussion regarding "WG F" formation,
it's not hard to see the self-contradictory arguments in the NC.

[2nd point] "the informality" and "the formality" in the NC

The typical informality in the Names Council

- The way how the chair of each NC Task Force or 
  NC Committee was decided so far. Just to make a motion to 
  volunteer has been enough. No votes. No show of hands.

- NC position can be posted and even claimed without any
   formal discussion in the NC.

A sudden formality in the Names Council since MdR meeting

- As soon as Review Working Group issue is on the table,
   especially people who have prefered to give informal way 
   of managing the matters turned into the genuine rule-followers
   insisting that there is no rules to follow so they will not make it
   happen.

Could you be more balanced?

[3rd point]

Regarding the relations between DNSO Review Committee(TF) and 
Review Working Group, no one wants to intrude upon the work 
DNSO Review Committee was doing just like you. That's my 
understaning after following this WG formation discussion in the NC.

Let me repeat once again how I proposed on Nov 23.
===========================================
4. The relationship with Review TF and NC

Review WG and Review TF and NC:

Since WG is within DNSO and TF is within NC, it is desirable
for two groups to exchange views and info to achieve their goals
as each input channel to NC and and advisory body to the NC.
============================================

If there is any sign for "potential intrusion insinuation" here due to 
my English problem, I am happy to make changes based upon 
your opinions and views.

> It is my belief (or at least  my inention) that the working group that 
> is being proposed is separate from my motion. Therefore, I think it 
> should stand on its own 

[4th point]

At this moment, this doesn't make any difference, Caroline.
As we all know this waits for NC's newly popped-up formality process.

> and I wish other NC members outside of those 
> they have been active on the list would contribute their thoughts.  I 
> personally have no problem setting up a list serve where people can 
> submit their comments to the DNSO Review questionnaire before the Dec 
> 19th teleconference.  

It would be my understanding the list-serve you suggest here can 
explore the questionnaire as well as other arising matters among the 
group on their own. 

> We need to get input that was not forthcoming in 
> the first round.  What I am nervous about is setting up an official WG 
> before we have all had a chance to fully dicsuss the scope, timeline, 
> etc. 

This has been presented many times here in the NC.
Do you have any comment regarding the concerns you mentioned
above from scope and timeline in this specific proposal below?

==========================================
2. Scope of WG

1st Stage: This Working Group can start from answering to the Review
                TF's questionaire which was presented to the Board.

2 nd Stage: Call for DNSO recommendation paper.

3 rd Stage: Take a voting process to adopt the WG's position paper
                  which will be presented to the NC.

3. Timeframe of Review WG

Nov. 27 - open end : Call for Participation in this WG
Dec. 4 : WG Charter Discussion
Dec. 11 : WG Charter Finalization
Dec. 11 - Jan.? : WG's Interim Report(Jan's NC teleconference)
Jan.?  - Feb ? : WG's Interim Report (Feb's NC teleconference)
March Melbourne: Submission to NC as WG's position
                              under assumption that it can find consensus.
===========================================

Thanks,
YJ




> 
> 
> ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> Originally From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group
> Date: 12/06/2000 01:27am
> 
> 
> Before playing with words with WG formation stuff,
> can someone clarify whether it is possible to change the text of
> the very motion and the relevant part after MdR NC meeting
> among the small group of people without any notice to those
> who can be affected by those sudden minutes changes?
> 
> First try: As soon as NC meeting ends
> Second try: The very next morning
> 
> YJ
> 
> PS. I do understand how terrible Caroline must have gone through
> that's why I have not responded to this kind of meaningless word game
> which will make people just "mentally-exhausted" however, it would
> be much appreciated to describe such a tragedy indirectly.
> 
> I feel sorry for her friend.
> and will wait until Caroline comes back to the list with her account.
> =============================================
> 
> > I'm confused to be quite honest about what we're trying to decide 
> here.
> Can
> > someone please clarify? What I understand is that YJ was asked to 
> chair a
> > working group per Caroline's motion. That working group is to 
> address some
> > issues related to YJ's document she circulated to the NC list before 
> the
> LA
> > meeting.
> >
> > The other matter is to have a working group related to the DNSO 
> review,
> > where my suggestion was in LA that there be a listserve set up under 
> the
> GA.
> > Roger agreed with this, then it appeared that the discussion got
> sidetracked
> > to the issue of Caroline's motion, and we never resolved the DNSO 
> working
> > group matter.
> >
> > If my understanding is correct, then I make the following suggestion 
> for
> the
> > two seperate matters at hand: 1) We immediately get clarification of
> > Caroline's motion and the working group attached to it. 2) A 
> listserve
> under
> > the GA is set up for the DNSO review working group, which there is a 
> large
> > interest in, and needs to be established. I'd suggest that Roberto, 
> as
> > liason to the DNSO review task force, act as chair of that group, 
> and
> > liasons with YJ's group on matters that may address the dnso review.
> >
> > We need to move on this, and unless we get clarification on the 
> motion for
> > YJ's working group, I'm afraid we'll never get it started, and the 
> DNSO
> > review working group will never formally be underway and get the 
> input
> into.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Theresa
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On 
> Behalf Of
> > Michael Chicoine
> > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:46 PM
> > To: Dany Vandromme; Peter de Blanc; council@dnso.org
> > Cc: YJ Park; Philip Sheppard
> > Subject: Re: Re: [council] Review Working Group
> >
> >
> > I disagree
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> > Originally From: Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>
> > Subject: Re: [council] Review Working Group
> > Date: 12/02/2000 10:24pm
> >
> >
> > on 2/12/00 21:58, Peter de Blanc at pdeblanc@usvi.net wrote:
> >
> > > Fellow NC members:
> > >
> > >
> > > A suggestion was made that the WG submit a "proposed charter" to 
> the
> > NC for
> > > ratification prior to undertaking its work.
> > >
> > > I submit that it would be impossible to even gather ideas and
> > discuss such a
> > > charter, without an operating list for those persons who wish to, 
> or
> > are
> > > willing to participate.
> > >
> > > Given the absence of any clear policy as may have been output by
> > working
> > > group "D", It seems that the only way to move forward with the YJ
> > WG-F is to
> > > turn on the list.
> > >
> > > The WG was voted upon and approved in a public meeting. Any delays
> > could
> > > provoke a negative public reaction.
> > >
> > > Does anyone on the council disagree with the necessity of 
> activating
> > the
> > > list now?
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > -
> > I fully agree with the request to activate the list as soon as
> > possible, and
> > certainly before the NC meeting of December.
> > Dany
> > -
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER
> >
> >                 Reseau National de Telecommunications
> >          pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
> >
> >                                   |  ENSAM
> > Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
> > Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
> > E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> 
>