RE: [council] RE: WG Review Comments

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

YJ,

Comments prepared and vetted by Kent will be taken by the task force -- all
comments received are welcome. The task force just needs clarification on
who's behalf the ones received on Jan. 8 are -- as it's not on 'behalf' of
the Non-commercial constituency, then is it just the adcom? As a member of
the adcom perhaps you can also respond to that?

Theresa


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> YJ Park (MINC)
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 2:32 AM
> To: Theresa Swinehart; Dany Vandromme
> Cc: Zakaria AMAR; Vany Martinez; Milton Mueller;
> ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org; council@dnso.org; Kent Crispin; Dave
> Crocker
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: WG Review Comments
>
>
> [Note] Please forward this mail to ncdnhc list.
>            Somehow my previous account is not working again.
>
> Theresa and all,
>
> First, let me apologize for not following up NCC discussion more than a
> week, which was originated by serious technical glitch. I just could read
> Kent's comment through NCC archive, which is also great contribution
> NCC has to appreciate.
>
> Theresa, thank you for your concerns in Non-Commercial Constituency's
> procedural flaw in reaching its own consensus regarding DNSO Review
> Comments made by NCC AdCom. Such comment should have been
> vetted through constituency first if that comment wants to be delivered
> as NCC's position instead of NCC AdCom's position to the TF.
>
> And it is great pleasure for Non-Commercial Constituency folks to be known
> to the fact that Business Constituency's consensus building
> process has also
> very solid, accountable consensus-building process. We hope that
> Non-Commercial Constituency can see such such well-developed position
> from Biz Constituency.
>
> Fortunately, we have several comments by Kent Crispin, Adam Peake
> and Milton
> Mueller in the NCC at this moment which has apprached to DNSO review.
> i.e. Kent responds to DNSO Review TF's questionaire with long-term
> perspective, Adam comment on "Outreach especially in the NCC" from
> membership perspective and Milton's comment is rather focusing on the
> timeframe and constituency structure from short-perspective. I personally
> think all of them are valuable in this consensus building process.
>
> If you think it's not harmonizable between Kent's and Milton's proposals,
> let members amend or merge the two proposals. We do still have time to do
> that.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
> > I've been reading these last communications under this subject
> heading --
> is
> > it the case that the comments you'd sent me on the 8th, copying
> the Names
> > Council, were not circulated to the non-commercial constituency. If so,
> then
> > that must be made clear in what you'd submitted to the task force, i.e.,
> > that they don't represent the constituency. If I as a BC representative
> were
> > to forward comments on behalf of the Business Constituency, I
> could never
> > forward them without vetting them with the constituency (the entire
> > constituency, even if no members respond).
> >
> > Kent, please forward the comments you'd mentioned in your
> earlier note to
> > Dany intended for the task force. I understand from your note
> that it's an
> > extensive document, answering all questions.
> >
> > Dany, please clarify what the comments you'd forwarded the task force
> > represent, and to whom they were circulated, ie, on who's
> behalf are they.
> >
> > Seems to me one of the issues here is how process in
> constituency works --
> > something the review is looking at.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Theresa
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 6:01 PM
> > > To: Dave Crocker; Dany Vandromme
> > > Cc: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com; Park, YJ YJ Park; zakaria@univ-nkc.mr;
> > > Vany Martinez; mueller@syracuse.edu;
> ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org; Kent
> > > Crispin
> > > Subject: Re: WG Review Comments
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:17:54PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > > Dany,
> > > > Please forgive my confusion, but I do not understand the basis
> > > for offering
> > > > these comments as "from the NCDNHC members".
> > > >
> > > > My own opinion is that all of the comments in the submission
> > > are excellent
> > > > and I would be glad to support them.
> > > >
> > > > However I was never asked to.
> > > >
> > > > THAT is the concern.
> > >
> > > On a related issue.
> > >
> > > See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00662.html -- a
> > > message dated Jan 8 (though it just recently made it to the
> web archive
> > > -- it wasn't there a couple of days ago when I looked) which says, in
> > > part:
> > >
> > > ================================================================
> > >   Hi Theresa,
> > >
> > >   Please find below the position of the NCDNHC adcom:
> > >
> > >   TO: The Names Council; The Names Council Review Task Force; ICANN
> > >   Staff and Board
> > >
> > >   RE: Response to DNSO Review Questionnaire
> > >
> > >   The Non-commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency supports a
> > >   careful, comprehensive, and productive review of the DNSO.  At the
> > >   Marina del Rey meeting, the members of the NCDNHC voted for the
> > >   formation of an open working group to study the problems of the DNSO
> > >   and make suitable recommendations.
> > >
> > >   We appreciate Names Council's final decision to create this working
> > >   group and we believe that the January 15 deadline imposed on the
> > >   working group, and the filtering of its input through a Names
> > >   Council-appointed Task Force, constitute unnecessary and
> > >   counterproductive constraints on the DNSO Review process.
> > >
> > >   Please accept this as our only official response to the
> Questionnaire.
> > >
> > >   For the last, NCDNHC requests NC to extend working group's deadline.
> > > ================================================================
> > >
> > > I never saw any mention of this particular position on the NCC list,
> > > nor any statement by the adcom that they were going to make any
> > > statement on behalf of the constituency, nor any attempt at all
> > > by the adcom
> > > to see if this position was a consensus of the membership.  I
> note that
> > > we have a resolution procedure for submitting resolutions, but it
> > > clearly wasn't followed in this case.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the above letter is really a pretty powerful statement -- it
> > > says in effect that the NCC has decided to boycott the review process
> > > in favor of YJ's WG -- that's not just a bit of procedural fluff --
> > > that's a position that by any standards should have been
> brought before
> > > the constituency.
> > >
> > > Looking over the NC mail archives, it is clear that there
> were repeated
> > > requests for NC members to collect input from their constituencies.  I
> > > know that YJ sent some stuff around a while ago, but there has been no
> > > discussion at all on the topic for quite some time -- until I
> submitted
> > > my response to the list, in fact.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
> >
>
>