[nc-review] Re: [council] Minutes from 19 October NC teleconference

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Dear YJ,

Thank you very much for your comments.
However I think that Secretariat should not include them in MINUTES,
because they are post-minutes COMMENTS to the teleconference, which you
could not attend (therefore apology -- added).

Actually I am glad to see your comment on the Whois group, I do believe
that a whois issue (data protection issue) is a  very important one,
and would like to know more on the Whois group composition as well as 
get written documents on its work, even if it is about very
technical matters.

Best,
Elisabeth
--

YJP wrote:
| 
| There are several inquiries regarding Oct teleconference where
| I could not attend due to my long flight.
| 
| Request to Elisabeth,
| Can you please add my post-comments to the minutes with apology
| regarding 2nd, Whois committee and 3rd, the resolution circulation?
| 
| 1st, Review Committee Status Report
| -------------------------------------------------------------
| Louis Touton noted that Theresa Swinehart was scheduled 
| to report to the ICANN Board the day after the NC meeting 
| -------------------------------------------------------------
| [snip]
| 
| Can we have further update regarding this from Theresa?
| Thanks in advance, Theresa.
| 
| 2nd, Whois Committee
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| Whois committee is to develop some ideas and pass them to the 
| NC or to the ICANN staff, depending on whether the ideas involved 
| new policy or implementation of existing policy. 
| 
| The group includes registrar/registry and intellectual property interests. 
| To the extent that the report raises issues for decision that involve 
| new policy rather than implementation of existing policy...
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| 
| I have some concerns regarding this committee.
| 
| Due to lack of time during the MdR NC meeting, this has not been 
| discussed enough and no interim report has been presented, either. 
| Therefore, it would be appreciated to have such a report asap,
| if it's available.
| 
| My first concern,
| Appreciating staff-driven Whois committee's works so far,
| every implementation issue is very likely to be asociated with
| policy issues and that's why it should be open as much as possible. 
| 
| My second concern,
| I think it's time to open this committee to all the constituencies. 
| Even though most topics are limited to registrar/registry and 
| intellectual property interests, the decisions on either implementation
| or policy are supposed to have serious impacts to the users, too.
| 
| That's why DNSO included these groups from the beginning.
| 
| 3rd, The resolution circulation
| --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Louis Touton commented that resolutions made could be forwarded 
| to the NC and could then be presented at the Public Forum. 
| --------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
| It would be great to notify each constituency that this procedure is
| already set up in the NC. Since there have been some confusions
| whether this is possible or not from time to time.
| 
| YJ
| 
| > The minutes from 19 October NC teleconference, drafted by Rebecca
| > Nessen, verified over Thanksgiving week-end by Louis Touton,
| > and re-read this sunny Paris Sunday by myself are in:
| >     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001019.NCtelecon-minutes.html
| > 
| > I do hope you will be happy with it, if no addition/comment before
| > next Friday, 1 December, I will distribute to all DNSO lists.
| > 
| > Please note the next two NC teleconferences will be held on:
| >        Tuesday 19 December 2000 and Wednesday 24 January 2001
| > it is time to submit agenda suggestions to the Intake Committee.
| > 
| > Kind regards,
| > Elisabeth
| > 
| 
|