Re: Re: [council] comments - your proposed draft terms of reference

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

Hello Caroline,

Axel is on the DNSO Review Committee as NC member and the pre-
working group I have been communicating with mostly comprised of
individual members who have shown their interests in this group.

I recently got a message from a representative of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh
International (TAGI), Charles Shaban, in the BC. He introduced himself
that he attends with the IPC too during the last ICANN meeting in LA
(representing the Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property - AGIP a subsidiary
of TAGI). cshaban@tagi.com www.tagi.com . And he is on the list.

He sounds like someone from IPC, doesn't he?

As soon as it is finalized, the whole invitation will be sent to all the
relavant
mailing lists including IPC by DNSO secretariat without doubt.

Thanks,
YJ

> The IPC appointed Axel to sit on the DNSO Review Committee, so I
> presume that he is being copied and involved on all of its activities
> both before and after the LA meeting. Can someone on the DNSO Review
> Committee confirm whether this is the case?  I was surprised to learn
> that the IPC was not involved.
>
>
>
> ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> Originally From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> Subject: Re: [council] comments - your proposed draft terms of
> reference
> Date: 12/12/2000 07:58pm
>
>
> Hello Ken and all,
>
> Wow! Thank you for circulating Review WG's terms of reference
> on behalf of me.:-)
>
> Let me answer to your question and concerns below.
>
> ===========================================
> Ken's question:
> ===========================================
> 1. why did you not see fit to distribute this in advance to the full
> council considering the fact that you are seeking the council's
> agreement
> on this "inclusive working group" it would seem to me (speaking as
> an individual member) that it would be most important to receive
> "all perspectives" in the proposed scope and goals for this working
> group ?
> ===========================================
>
> There has been a small group which I personally have tried to seek
> some responses regarding review WG since Marina del Rey meeting
> where Theresa is in as chair of NC Review Task Force in the spirit of
> real DNSO review. - more consulatation, more bottoms up process -
>
> As I remember, the deadline for NC docu this time is Dec 13,
> which will be tomorrow, so I sent it to them first for any correction
> which you suggested below, thanks! "Balanced Amendment"
> will be my focus as I noted in the draft.
>
> This draft is supposed to go to the council tomorrow together with
> "Whois Committee" report. Taking advantage of this, I hope every
> relevant document can be presented to the NC meeting until then
> as we promised to ourselves.
>
> ===============================================
> Ken's comment
> ===============================================
> 2.There is in the early section of this proposal certain "personal
> opinions"
> being presented,  (specifically:"Skepticism and apathy have developed
> among many participants due to a failure to see past Working Groups'
> own consensus reflected in the later actions of the Names Council or
> ICANN Board") which would incline any many readers to believe that
> the working group is being "lead in a specific direction" rather than
> being
> developed for the purpose of studying the current system and making
> proposals to make it more effective and inclusive "for all" in the
> future.
>
> my personal feeling is that this section of the preamble is more of an
> opinion
> rather than a positive statement of objectives of the group and could
> create
> dissention & controversy  at a point in this process where it is not
> necessary
> to do so.
> ===============================================
>
> Due to my unsophisticated way of English, that was my best try.
> As I wrote, I will be happy to see any friendly amendment so it would
> be much more effective for you to suggest it since you appear to have
> lots of thoughts.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> =============================================
> Ken's concerns and suggestion
> =============================================
> the creation of and future work of this working group should no be an
> "adversarial process" but a collaborative & cooperative one.
>
> in summary, i believe that it is essential that we get off to a good
> start
> with
> this group and all work hard to avoid any possibility of
> "pre-concieved"
> images of biases here. we must insure that, given the sensitive nature
> of
> the
> topic that  this group remains "totally inclusive", open to all views
> and
> perspectives and unbiased in its operation.
>
>  to that end i notice that there are no names of any members of the IP
>  or
> ISP constituancies on the mailing list, (please feel free to correct
> me if i
> am wrong here ), you have currently been distributing the draft
> document
> to and would suggest that you make it a point to reach out to this
> group
> as well in the formulative process to avoid any perception of  bias or
> non-inclusion.
> ============================================
>
> Ken, I 100% agree upon the concerns you expressed here.
> This small group was invited either they were ex-chairs of WGs
> or they showed interests in Review WG formation. And so far,
> this group has been waiting for its formal formation by Dec NC
> teleconference.
>
> As I described, Review WG's membership structure should be
> open to "Seven" constituencies and how to keep chime with
> each other would be "The Most Critical Priority" for this group.
>
> If IP, ISP, or any other constituency which may feel isolated
> in this consulatation process, please let me know.
>
> Appreciating Ken's positive suggestions and comments, I am
> looking forward to your friendly amendment proposal.
>
> YJ
>
>