[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] One item more to be considered in the Review of the WGs reports
Dear Council members,
> i am somewhat confused here by this post .
I should have explained more on this with background in advance.
Some of you could remember some miscommunication among
non-commercial constitucncy a month ago.
This made me go back to the fundamental question on why this
could happen in our constituency and why not the other constituencies.
In the process of analyzing this, I realized that from the beginning of
there has been little concern in developing countries.
Whenever those representatives from developing countries are asked
to cast a vote or decide to or not to, they are in consultation with
not their own members who chose him/her to be their representative to
reflect their interests but their own collegues who possibly have been
exposed to this process longer than themselves but might have different
views and opinions since they are in the different stage of development.
On the other hand, if some different opinions are raised among the same
constituency, people start to conspire that it may have some manipulation
possibly in connection with commercial constituency and so on.....
mainly because they cannot understand what the others are like,
which shouldn't be a reason for that.
So far, we have presumably thought the voices from the one constituency
should be the same. However, it can be different depending on their
which may interpret the same issue differently.
Therefore, in the process of articulating this issue,
the fact that more fundamental issues should be first clarified came across.
> what is expected from the council with respect to this item. ?
The whole issue, "where is the perspective from developing countries"
is related across the constituencies not only in the non-commercial
To be clear, this stage is just its initail stage when all the interested
can join and put their inputs in this process, which can be called, to
"developing countries' white paper".
> this is the first opportunity i have had to be exposed to this position
> paper. i would like to know
> 1. who developed this paper ?
Initially myself and it would be devleoped by more volunteers such as
Hans Klein, Nii Quynor, Kilnam Chon, and many others. I also would
like to invite many of you to join this effort.
> 2. what organizations have signed on to this ?
If this is needed, it would be done through appropriate ways.
> 3. how widely was the paper circulated in asia ?
It has been mainly circulated in the asia non-commercial mailing list.
Since the main purpose was to articulate the why we might have
different views within even the same constituency.
> 4. how long was the paper exposed for comment in this region ?
The first rough-rough draft was first circulated a month ago.
> 5. what forum was used for exposing this paper ?
Mainly through non-commercial orgs' forum.
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:56 AM
> Subject: [council] One item more to be considered in the Review of the WGs
> > Collegues,
> > I am requested by YJ Park to add one item more to be considered
> > in the Review of the WGs reports:
> > Developping Countries' stakes in the ICANN process
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000508.DevCountries.WGB-WGC.html
> > I added it to the NC telecon agenda as posted on the DNSO Website
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCtelecon-agenda.html
> > Elisabeth