Re: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I

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

> Thank you YJ. To the best of my knowledge, this report has not been
endorsed
> by your group and so its credibility may come under question. It would be

That's a good point, Erica.
Including Christmas and New Year holiday, only 24 working days to reach
any consensus in this group was too "challanging." The below is the schedule
which was initially tried and realized it is out of sense.

That's why it is decided to submit progress report which doesn't conclude
anything and could not do under short time given by Names Council.
Therefore, I have tried to summarize WG Review status as coordinator.

Regarding credibility or endorsement, let me explain how this report was
finally sent to the NC Review TF, NC and the Board.

The January 15th [version 0.1] was circulated to the list on January 13
seeking comments from members, which have had few response.

The January 15th [version 0.2] was circulated to the list after 24 hours or
so
again seeking comments from members, which have had slightly more
responses than earlier.

Finally, January 15th [version 0.3: put as final draft] was circulated
to the list after 24 hours or so seeking comments from members,
which had quite more responses than earlier.

And then after around 14 hours later, the January 15th report was sent
to NC and the Board after receiving the last-minute comments.

Therefore, it will be very hard to say it does not have working group's
supports however, I didn't ask for endorsement, either.

Since this a is status report and their endorsed position by working group
members is expected to come out on Feb. 20, if it is possible.

===========================================
Dec. 23 - 26 :
The press release was announced through icann-announce list
on Dec. 23 and WG members had its brief and informal introduction
session.

Dec. 27 - Jan 4:
Ten topics with questions from NC Review TF was circulated.
Five topics has been added by WG members including IDNH,
sTLD and GA chair election. However most discussion has been
focused on Constituencies - Structure - so far.

WG Co-Chair Election Schedule announcement on Dec. 30
Its final election result is expected to come out on Jan 15.

Straw Poll Result on Jan 2 has shown that Review WG needs more
time to come up with substantial report to NC.

Jan 5 - Jan 9:
Call for Position Paper on each topic, 15 topics until Jan 9.

Jan 10 - Jan 11:
Comments from members on the presented position papers.

Jan 12 - Jan 14:
Progress Report will be submitted to this group and will have
another consulation from this group before it is presented to NC.
===========================================

> * information on any votes taken;

This info is explained in
[Appendix 1] Various Poll Result Surveyed by Review WGs.

> * any other information which will indicate the level of support this
report
> has from your group;

I think I already explained.

> *  information on the size, level of participation, and composition of
your
> group;

[Appendix 11] Review WG's Members and its Details

Let me put more emphasis on this especially regarding level of
participation.
It turns out that there are many non-US or Europe people in the list,
active participation has been shown by those who can use English with ease,
which ICANN shoul take this into account seriously.

This has alreaday happened in WG A, B, C and D. Except E which has
another story to tell.

> * information on who has produced and signed off on this report.

"Who produced" is clearly noted in every Appendix.
If there is no specific name, it has been done by myself.

[Appendix 1] Various Poll Result Surveyed by Review WGs
[Appendix 2] Jonathan Weinberg's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 3] Kent Crispin's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 4] Karl Auerbach's Comment on Constituency
[Apeendix 5] Joanna Lane's Proposal of IDNH Membership Criteria
[Appendix 6] Milton Mueller's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 7] Bret Fausset's Proposal to Create New Constituecny Procedure
[Appendix 8] Adam Peake's Report on NCC's Outreach Status
[Appendix 9] registrar.com's Position on DNSO Quality
[Appendix 10] Review WG's Chronology from Dec 23 through Jan. 15
[Appendix 11] Review WG's Members and its Details
[Appendix 12] Review WG's Co-Chair Election Details
[Appendix 13] List of Issues
                  I.   Review WG's Charter Finalization
                  II.  Ten Topics by NCRTF and Five Issues by Review WG
                  III. Rod Dixon's Issue List Suggested
[Appendix 14] Statistics on Email list
[Appendix 15] Dany Younger's "Procedure to Establish Consensus"
[Appendix 16] Joop Teernstra's Comment on At-Large and Individual
                       Domain Name Owners constituency
[Appendix 17] DNSO Working Group Review - History in the Making
                       (DNSO Secretariat Provided.)
[Appendix 18] Eric's Procedure for Posting to the List
[Appendix 19] Greg Burton's Comment on "NC and Consensus"
[Appendix 20] Kent Crispin's Comments on Working Groups
[Appendix 21] Kent Crispin's Comment on WG-Review
[Appendix 22] Greg Burton's Preliminary Report(I) on Consensus
[Appendix 23] Greg Burton's Preliminary Report(II) -
                        3. Constituencies and 4. GA

This report does not go through any sing-off period since this is status
report. WG-members have watched and made comments.

Thanks,
YJ