Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.

["YJ Park \(MINC\)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

WG members,

> I'm still here, though I'm not convinced there's much point. The original
> deadline was 15 Jan. There was confusion about whether it was extended to
> 20 Feb.
>
> If this group continues and produces some new report, after 20 Feb, will
the
> Names Council or the board pay any attention?

To inform more clearly, I do forward the WG-related NC discussion
to the group. Please, understand that this is a draft minutes, though. This
is distributed here for your information. I hope this would be of help.
[Please, see Appendix 1]

Regarding the communique among Philip, Theresa and myself, we have
had little progress fo far, however, as soon as it is concluded, this will
be delivered to the WG.[Please, see Appendix 2]

I do believe your voices will be heard and even implemented after you
have shown tremendous patience in this porocess.:-)

Thank you,
YJ
=============================================
[Appendix 1] Agenda item 2: Review Process.

o      NC Review Task Force update and timetable
o      Working Group - clarification on deadlines, clarification of terms of
reference)

Documents referenced in
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html

Th. Swinehart recalled current status: the Interim report was posted for
public comment on January 8th (closing date February 11th). All comments
received will be incorporated and a report sent to ICANN Board. Current
wording is a selection of analysis made and comments received. Next step
will comprise a prioritisation process of items to be returned to the NC and
be considered as a part of the DNSO Business Plan. A timetable will be
re-circulated.

The process was that the Board would look at the recommendations,  and
respond to the NC for implementation.

At this point Y.J. Park was invited by the Chair to speak on the WG review
and the way it will most efficiently fit into the whole process.

Y.J. Park said that the WG is constructively organising discussions. Some
input expected by February 11th, but more time is still needed. She asked
the secretariat who is going to deal with the comments received after that
deadline.

E. Porteneuve informed that all comments sent to the list are recorded.

Ph. Sheppard added that all comments received in time would be reviewed.

Y.J. Park asked about the transfer process of the recommendations coming out
of the Review Process into DNSO Business Plan.

Ph. Sheppard clarified: he will be presenting the Business Plan to the NC at
a future meeting. Review implementation is a part of the Business Plan.

Ph. Sheppard reminded the participants that the Review Task Force is
composed of representatives of each Constituency: A. Aus der Muhlen, R
Cochetti, H. Hotta, P. KaneY.J. Park, E. Porteneuve, Th. Swinehart and GA
Chair R. Gaetano.

After some discussion it was agreed that Review implementation would be led
by a new task force with new Terms of Reference.

Ph. Sheppard asked Y.J Park, if she does not see a difficulty in two-stream
process:

- Report send to ICANN by NC,
- Continuing of the WG activities.

As we are in presence of parallel activities addressing the same questions
that could diminish impact of the message we want to pass

Y.J. Park suggested that a convergent process could consist in WG Chair
providing recommendations to the Board at the same time as the Task Force
Chair at the Melbourne meeting.

Th. Swinehart pointed out that there is going to be an overall open ICANN
comment period and she suggested using that channel for further input.

E. Roberts insisted that we have to stick to the process, as defined
otherwise we could cause some confusion.

Ph. Sheppard suggested that all WG comments received after February 11th
deadline, should be a part of the ICANN public comment process.

Y.J. Park said that more chance should be given to come up with more
recommendations and reach a compromise.

E. Roberts thought that more effective for the WG would be to contribute
subsequently and send the input before the Board takes in the comments.

C. Chicoine expressed another concern about the WG mandate, based on
experience of previous WG activity. It should be made clear that this WG
activity is not mandated by the NC and that no frustration should be felt if
the impact of the WG conclusions is not as high as wished by its
participants.

Decision D2 : proposed by Ph. Sheppard, Seconded Th. Swinehart:

It was agreed that Th. Swinehart with Y.J. Park and the NC Chair would draft
a communication to the WG to confirm the present timetable and that WG
Review input NOT received by the DNSO by Feb 11 would form a part of the
ICANN public comment period and that would complete the work of WG Review.

Another topic
Y.J. Park suggested forming a WG on the formation of new constituencies.

E. Roberts expressed concern about the process and suggested the NC consider
first:

- the  need,
- a process to avoid a case-by-case approach,
- the level of support and commitment to pay fees,
- the issue of representation .

C. Chicoine mentioned other concerns about the WG where everybody is making
the best effort, but the problem faced is effectiveness representativeness
ness. Consensus based view is expressed solely by those having time to work.
We need to focus on WGD final report.

Ph. Sheppard stressed a need in defining clear objectives and a process for
achieving them.

P. Kane also objected a multiplying WG process, insisting that people who do
not contribute get no voice in the process. He also proposed to wait until
the review process comes up with some conclusions.

Y.J. Park expressed her understanding of all those concerns, and suggested
to wait for the WGD recommendations.

Ph. Sheppard stressed that broader view is needed (B. Fausett is helping
with this process). He hoped the NC could come up with the decision quickly
.
Y.J. Park came back to a WGD issue: a report will go for public comment
before final version is issued. This will cause delays in setting up a new
individuals constituency. She therefore requested putting in place a fast
track procedure.

[Appendix 2] Regarding Review-WG

Hello Theresa and Philip,

First, thank you for your efforts here however the terms
you have described here will let review-WG members feel
frustrated again and I don't think I can agree upon what you
suggest here. If we try to work together, I don't think this
should be the way. Instead, both of us are to be asked to step
back equally rather than forcing one side to step back all the time.

Therefore, I cannot agree upon your proposal this time, Philip.
However, I am still open more fair proposal later.

Thanks,
YJ

===============================================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR WORKING GROUP REVIEW
Future timetable for the groups input

Status
1. The DNSO comment period on the draft DNSO Review Report v. 2.0a ended
February 11th.

Next steps
2. Comments submitted from WG Review and others will be incorporated as
appropriate by the chair of the Names Council Review Task Force (NCRTF) into
a draft version 3.  NCRTF comprises one representative from each of the
seven NC constituencies. Version 3 will be validated by remaining members of
the NCRTF.

3. DNSO Review Report version 3 will then be sent to the ICANN Board during
week commencing 12 February 2001. This is in preparation for the Board's
meeting in March in Melbourne and to allow time for an ICANN public comment
period.

4. As was mandated, the task of the Names Council Review Task Force,
including a DNSO public comment period, will then be complete.

5. In order to ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board, all further
comments from WG Review should be directed to the ICANN public comment
website, when the ICANN public comment period begins.

6. At the closure of the ICANN public comment period the task of WG Review
will be complete.

Implementation
7. The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the final WG D
report and from the Review process to develop a new process to implement the

recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in this
implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the structure of
participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO
working groups!

Kind regards,

Theresa Swinehart, Chair, DNSO Review Task Force
YJ Parks, NC Liaison to the DNSO Working Group
Philip Sheppard, NC Chair

------------------------------------------------------
                                [End of Appendices]

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