[nc-review] Re: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO Review Report version 1.0

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Hi YJ,
I t might be helpful for us all if you could explain what you see as your
role (and primary objectives) as the liaison Chair of the WG-Review.

Regards,
erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
To: <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>; <nc-review@dnso.org>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO Review Report version 1.0


> For the last, this is my Further Recommendation on DNSO Review.
>
> 1st, Please, accept this motion.
>
> Motion to NC from WG-Review teleconference regarding "chair"
>
> YJ Park, the current chair of WG-Review designated by NC, is going
> to ask NC to recognize newly elected WG-Review co-chair, as formal
> chair of WG-Review and YJ Park as liaison chair of WG-Review from
> NC which has been well-established practice in the DNSO.
>
> 2nd, Please, set up proper rules within the NC.
>
> I still feel uncomfortable in the NC procedure which demands NC
> members to decide on-spot decision from time to time. i.e.I happen
> to see budget proposal which has designed DNSO as an incorporated
> body which I first heard of.
>
> I guess there must be lots of talks over "new gTLD registries contract
> details" in somewhere. I guess there must be lots of talks over "DNSO
> secretariat set up details" in somewhere. I guess there must be lots of
> talks over "Whois Committee details" in somewhere. etc.... I can guess
> there must be more issues which have not even been disclosed yet.
>
> As an International participant in this process, whenever I feel I am
> a mere guest and forced to say the same thing without any detailed
> explanation, it is frustrating process.
>
> Whenever this is brought up on the table, people say "TRUST".
> You don't have to know all the details which will make you feel
> burdensome. People will take care of you and you just trust them
> and say "Yes".
>
> However, it's still uncomfortable since it's difficult to figure out
> whom I have been asked to trust here.
>
> 3rd, Please, allow reasonable timeframe to WG-Review
>
> As a Liasion NC WG-Review Chair, I do recommnd that NC should
> ask WG-Review to come up with their report by early March which
> will allow people to discuss more during the Melbourne meeting.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
>