Re: [council] RE: WG Review Comments

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

Theresa,

> 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?

Let me clarify this as member of Review Task Force.

As I indicated in my earlier message, that was on behalf of "NCC AdCom".
If time allows, NCC's position will be delivered at least before Review TF
finishes its job to be reflected in the report.

If you don't mind, I can deliver that position to Review TF
even though it may pass the deadline you asked earlier.
The important thing is whether Review TF can get more formal position
from diverse parties.

YJ

> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>