Re: [wg-review] Decision D2

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Dear Danny Young,

>      I refer you to your own post
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00098.html (Review Process
> Background and Charter Discussion) wherein the lifetime of the Review WG
is
> shown to extend to June:  "Stockholm:  Submission to NC as WG's position
> under assumption that it can find consensus".
>      I, for one, intend to abide by the terms delineated by this Charter,
> and do not accept the rogue position adopted by the Names Council:

It was proposed for further discussion in the Review WG
however, unfortunately we have been pressed by the timeline,
which could not make us do this clarification yet.

> "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 the WG Review."
>      An effort by the Names Council to revoke the Charter of a Working
> Group, to stifle discussion, and to effectively deny a Working Group the
> opportunity to present its full and complete findings to the Board in
> accordance with a predetermined schedule is not to be tolerated.

I don't think they wanted to stifle this group. Instead, we are in the new
phase to cooperate before the Board presentation.

However, WG cannot agree upon what NC has been reacting to WG,
such issue can be addressed by WG directly or through Review TF to the
Board with reasonable recommendation.

If we remember how this process is initiated from Yokohama, this must
have been predestined. What if WG cannot accept its advisory body's
or representative body's position, here in this context NC's position?

I do recommend this should be addressed by either WG or NC and ideally,
those two bodies can reach their monious harconclusion to avoid continuous
mistrust from both sides.

>      This despicable action violates the very By-Laws of ICANN that state,
> "The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the maximum
> extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
> procedures designed to ensure fairness."  Where is the fairness in denying
> this Working Group the opportunity to fulfill its mandate?  What is open
and
> transparent about a Names Council meeting to terminate the life of the
> Review WG that does not even include the Chair of the Review WG in such
> discussions?  Where is the responsibility of the Names Council "for
ensuring
> that all responsible views have been heard and considered"?  Are these
only
> empty words?

I do propose here to Philip Sheppard that NC should invite Greg Burton
in its next NC meeting for further process.

Thanks,
YJ

p.s. I am again on the road therefore, it might be difficult to be
responsive.


--
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