RE: [nc-review] DNSO review version 3.0 comment

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

YJ,

My error regarding the IPC constituency comments, and clarification I sought
that they were comments by members within the constituency, was due to my
own error, it is clear in their comments that they are from 'members' of the
constituency. .

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of YJ Park (MINC)
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:24 PM
> To: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com; nc-review@dnso.org
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-review] DNSO review version 3.0 comment
>
>
> This message may be redelivered later through my other account
> which couldn't be delivered for more than 12 hours so far.
> ===========================================
> Hello Review TF members,
>
> I do have a concern in "representation and procedures within the
> constituencies" in version 3.0. That specific paragraph describes
> as follows:
>
> "Structural ... 'the position of a constituency' as opposed to statements
> made by some members of a constituency on behalf of the constituency,
> without members given opportunity for input."
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/maillist.html;
> http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/0034.html;
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02060.html;
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02070.html
>
> My first concern is the footnote quoted regarding this matter are
> all about
> non-commercial constituency only even though we do have this problem
> almost in every constituency at certain level.
>
> For instance, it turns out the constituency positions such as IPC
> in version
> 3.0 is not really the constituency position at all as we heard from Axel,
> one of Review TF member from IPC. [See below attachment]
>
> Therefore, we do also need to hear from ISPC regarding its confirmation
> how such a position could be developed in such a short time period even
> before the substantial DNSO review process was on track in October or so.
> And their model can be used as educational case for the other
> constituencies
> to follow to build up its consensus easily and timely.
>
> However, we DNSO review TF needs to admit it has been almost
> impossible for the constituency to build up the consensus in general
> due to lack of procedures in place yet rather than nicely put it as the
> constituency position.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
> =================================================
>
> From: "aus der Muhlen, Axel" <Axel_ausderMuhlen@mpaa.org>
> To: "'Theresa Swinehart'" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>;
> <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; "aus der Muhlen, Axel"
> <Axel_ausderMuhlen@mpaa.org>; <yjpark@myepark.com>
> Cc: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>; "Philip Sheppard"
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:41 AM
> Subject: RE: Questions for completion of the revised dnso review report
>
> Theresa wrote:
>
> > IPC Constituency:
> > 1) are IPC comments from some members of the IPC, or
> specifically from the
> > IPC constituency? Please clarify so we can clarify in the report.
>
> Axel wrote:
>
> > Theresa,
> >
> > The IPC comments were made by individual members of the IPC.
> >
> > Let me know if you have any further questions.
> >
> > Axel
> ==================================================
>                             [End of Attachment]
>
>