[council] RE: NC's UDRP WG

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

Unfortunately I missed out on the earlier exchanges, but will go ahead and
provide my comments to Kathy's note, and which also take into consideration
the prior exchanges.

As said on the last conference call, and as Ted notes, nothing as moved on
this yet. The purpose of the smaller group is to draft something and think
it through a bit (e.g.., as Ted noted, how to suggest monitoring is done
etc.). Kathy, as I said on the last call, it's not a problem for you to
participate if your interested in the small group that's proposing
something. As Ted and Carolyn also noted, this is just to get things
started, nothing more.

One additional comment and adding my input --

I object to using an alternate outside of the constituency representatives
unless it's a circumstance which has been discussed by the entire Names
Council. The only time I think there is an acceptable use of an alternate,
as was decided for the voting of DNSO representatives to the ICANN Board, is
if there is a voting issue for which the constituency representative is not
available. Here are my reasons for objecting to use of alternatives outside
the constituency representatives in non-voting related matters.

a) other constituency representatives can be asked to sit in - and you have
some very talented co-constituency representatives, as do other
constituencies. As Carolyn notes, and I have to agree, if you can't make it,
then one of your other representatives can.
b) an alternative does not necessarily always represent the constituency
(the constituency selects the representatives) - which is why an alternates
role is limited to voting (with instructions on how to vote), or perhaps
other situations where very specific instructions are provided by the
representative to the alternate. The reasons for this are to protect the
constituency representative, as well as the constituency - we had this
discussion during the voting period.  While I did not object to the last
minute request at the LA meeting whether Milton could act as your alternate
during the physical meeting, I was not comfortable with how the role of
alternate was misused and exceeded just voting on issues during that
meeting, and would need to reconsider these kinds of requests in the future.

Theresa



-----Original Message-----
From:	Chicoine, Caroline [mailto:chicoinc@PeperMartin.com]
Sent:	Monday, January 03, 2000 2:13 PM
To:	'KathrynKL@aol.com'; Chicoine, Caroline; Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org;
Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Cc:	mueller@syr.edu; council@dnso.org
Subject:	RE: NC's UDRP WG

In the future, please mark your emails "private" and I would be happy to
oblige.  Unless otherwise indicated and when it relates to the NC as a
whole, I follow the open and transparent policy.

I have what I think is a legitimate question out on the table about the
issue you raised about having a non-NC member participating in the
formation/defining stages of a Working Group (rather than having one of your
fellow NC representatives from the NCDNHC take your place in your absence).
I do not know the right answer since I for one will agree that the bylaws
are not crystal clear on this point.  I have thus asked my fellow NC
representative's input on this issue.  Maybe it is a non-issue or it is
clear and I am just missing the boat (would not be the fist time), and if
so, I apologize for the inconvenience of this detour.

Finally, I wish to confirm that all this committee is directed to do is set
up the framework of a new working group on this issue, it does not represent
the working group itself. I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on
this point.

Caroline

-----Original Message-----
From: KathrynKL@aol.com [mailto:KathrynKL@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:43 PM
To: chicoinc@pepermartin.com; Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org;
Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Cc: mueller@syr.edu; council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: NC's UDRP WG


Ah, I see your concern, and would normally agree.  However, Professor
Mueller
has officially been designated as my alternate in the NC by the NCDNHC
(replacing Randy Bush).  Thus, he will be participating in this discussion
whenever I am unavailable.

I should also note that as my proxy, Professor Mueller volunteered to
participate in this NC subgroup back in LA, and his name and indeed our
NCDNHC presence on this important subgroup was lost.  This is bad precedent
within the Names Council and engenders bad feeling within the
Constituencies.

Again, I cannot accept Ted's proposal that the NCDNHC only review whatever
proposal the IPC and BC provide us, and not serve as a full-fledged
participant in the process of devising the monitoring group and standards.
We volunteered upfront to be a full-fledged part of the process and we have
reminded you of our commitment.  With the existence of the first case in the

UDRP system, let's move forward with the substance of the matter quickly.

I should also note that I am surprised that a private email discussion
between the subgroup was forwarded to the Council.  I would request that
more
care be taken in the future.

Kathy

>
>  It was my understanding that at this stage the NC is simply setting up a
>  proposed charter for such a WG and that according to the bylaws, the "NC"
>  shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out its
>  responsibility for the management of the consensus building process of
the
>  DNSO, including the designation of such research or drafting committees,
>  working groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines appropriate to
>  carry out the substantive work of the DNSO."  Therefore, I believe it
would
>  be inappropriate for Milton to be participating at this stage.