Re: [council] RE: WG Review Comments

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Hello Kent and all,

> > 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.
>
> Am I missing some mail, or overlooking something?  I find comments from
> Milton on the DNSO budget proposal, but I haven't seen any comments on
> the topic of the dnso review.  Could someone forward those to me, if
> they were posted to the list and I just lost them?

First, I feel sorry for not following up this discussion due to Review WG
and
email deliverance trouble for a few days which made me feel frustrated.

Let me clarify things regarding NCC's position on DNSO Review.

1st, Theresa asked NCC representatives to submit its position on DNSO Review
===================================================
From: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
To: <vandrome@renater.fr>; <zakaria@univ-nkc.mr>; <yjpark@myepark.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 3:09 AM
===================================================

2nd, Dany asked me to cc NCC AdCom whether I wanted to handle it or not.
===================================================
From: "Dany Vandromme" <vandrome@renater.fr>
To: <yjpark@myepark.com>; <zakaria@univ-nkc.mr>; <ceo@vany.org>;
<mueller@syracuse.edu>; <vandrome@renater.fr>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:10 AM
===================================================

3rd, Milton replied to us with his draft proposal as follows with request
whether he can forward this as AdCom member to NC
==================================================
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <vandrome@renater.fr>
Cc: <yjpark@myepark.com>; <zakaria@univ-nkc.mr>; <ceo@vany.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:30 PM
===================================================

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 unanimously for the formation
of an open working group to study the problems of the DNSO and make
suitable recommendations.

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.

4th, I made some suggestions to his original proposal by answering who
replies to NC doesn't matter.
==============================================
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>; <vandrome@renater.fr>
Cc: <zakaria@univ-nkc.mr>; <ceo@vany.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:39 AM
==============================================

5th, Dany sent the amended NCC's AdCom's position to the council.
It was not NCC's position, though as Dave pointed out somewhere.
===============================================
From: "Dany Vandromme" <vandrome@renater.fr>
To: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
Cc: <yjpark@myepark.com>; <zakaria@univ-nkc.mr>; <ceo@vany.org>;
<mueller@syracuse.edu>; <vandrome@renater.fr>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:26 AM
================================================
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.
==================================================

This is the email exchange many members couldn't share since it was
discussed
among AdCom and distributed in the name of AdCom not Non-Commercial
Domain Name Holders Constituency.

If there has been any misunderstanding, I do apologize for that.

Thanks and regards,
YJ