RE: [nc-review] Re: DNSO review 3 - comments

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

YJ,

I've inserted the comment into a footnote in the report, which can be
further commented on during the ICANN public comment period. Unfortunately
due to the late receipt of this comment, Task Force members don't have the
opportunity to comment on it, or provide input to it.

All task force members have seen all versions of this report, and comments
to the report. In my note to the Task Force on the review of version 3.0, it
was clear that the next step would be forwarded the report to the Board
after the recommended deadline of Friday close of business (which is
stretched to accommodate all time zones ;-)).

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 10:22 PM
> To: Adam Peake; nc-review@dnso.org
> Cc: ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org
> Subject: [nc-review] Re: DNSO review 3 - comments
>
>
> This message may be redelivered later through my other account
> which couldn't be delivered for more than 12 hours so far.
> ===========================================
>
> Hello Review Task Force,
>
> This is one of requests from non-commercial constituency member
> who wants me to deliver his concern through Review Task Force
> regarding DNSO version 3.0 which has two concerns here.
>
> 1. More neutral description is needed between commercial and
>     non-commercial weight.
>
> 2. Concerns in time whether the process we have gone through
>     is time-conscious or not.
>
> Supporting his concern in more balanced description in the report,
> I want to seek understanding from him regarding comments after
> its deadline since everybody has been pressed by time here.
>
> As Review task force member, I do want to promise this will be
> corrected by the request accordingly in the next version. BTW,
> how can we make sure of this will be done among TF members?
>
> I realized we have little discussion on the content of the report
> i.e. whether we should put/delete this or not here. We have never
> done any voting either among members. I am curious how we
> are going to handle this in a small-size 8 member committee.
>
> Theresa, can you advise me and members regarding this matter?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> YJ
>
> From: "Adam Peake" <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
> To: <yjpark@minc.org>
> Cc: <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:15 PM
> Subject: DNSO review 3 - comments
>
> > Question about some text in the DNSO Review ver. 3 document
> > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00137.html>
> >
> > >Next steps in exploring whether to create an Individual Domain Name
> > >Holders Constituency must include addressing different views within
> > >individual domain name holder interest groups, to resolve contentious
> > >areas, identify a representative charter that does not overlap with
> > >the General Assembly, Non-Commercial Constituency, and the At Large.
> >
> > AIPLA's comments
> >
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00
026.html>
> mentioned potential overlapping interests between all constituencies and
> particularly the NCC and IDNO. As I think our constituency discussion on
> whether to admit individuals showed, we were extremely aware that many
> individuals used their net presence for business and  deciding what was
> commercial/non-commercial was going to be a major concern.  The One-Person
> Business is not an unusual concept.  Our charter explicitly denies
> membership to individuals.
>
> YJ, as a Task Force member would you consider asking that this text be
> changed to either note that the overlap also includes the commercial
> constituency, or that reference to non-commercial be removed and replaced
> by text such as "the General Assembly, other constituencies, and the At
> Large." Perhaps include a reminder in that the DNSO formation concepts
> state "Individual domain name holders should be able to participate in
> constituencies for which they qualify."
>
> Also it would be interesting to know whether AIPLA's comment was submitted
> within the time limit. The message seems to be date stamped 30 minute
> before the deadline (document too), but the archive shows it delivered
> after? I would *not* suggest AIPLA's comments be excluded because of this,
> but given the fuss over time and deadlines it is worth clarifying.