Re: [ga] Re: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight" Body?

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

Jeff and Erica,

Jeff wrote:

> It would seem to me that the proper body for such a proposed oversight
> body would be the DNSO GA.  I am sorry if this is in contrast to your
> view in this instance.  But the NCDNHC is only one constituency within the
> DNSO.  The DNSO GA allows participation of any constituency
> member as well as others.  Therefore the reason for my suggestion of
> the DNSO GA.

To be more correct, it would be better not to use "oversight" body.
Instead, it would be more appropriate to put it as "consensus" process.

Therefore, it is not important to divide constituency or GA from DNSO.
We all have to be involved with this process.

Erica wrote:

> While I sympathise with your concerns, it is worth remembering the the
role
> of the DNSO is to promote consensus and provide advice to ICANN on policy
> issues.

As Erica described here, we are all here to particiapate in DNSO consensus
building process. In this respect, ccTLD issues need to be discussed in an
open manner to reach such consensus through GA, and other constituencies,
which in some sense we have already started by sharing views in the public
forum.

ccSO proposal sounds in general consulted with most constituencies and
was supported by them(no formal consultation in NCDNHC yet) in public.
However, we are just at its initial stage to explore ccTLD-related consensus
from "Best Practice" into "Local Internet Community" etc.....

Thanks,
YJ

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html