DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Please make comments on

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your comments.
I do remeber "Independence Day" which is one of the most common
backgrounds of many hollywood movies.:-)

As you are concerned in the time-frame below, we are already
left behind according to the schedule. If you felt a bit offended by my
deadline(24 hours), I want to let you know I didn't mean it. The only
at this moment is NC agenda should have been available two weeks
in advance prior to its meeting. Therefore, if we can get responses
from NC before Friday, I think it would be more reasonable to post
it to the relavant groups to have more communications among NC, GA
and constituencies.

BTW, I hope you have had a great holiday.:-)

Let me answer to you or just add some concerns here.

> item # 3 I will ask ICANN staff to report to the council on the current
> status of the TLD expansion issues and we will have the opportunity to
> question them about the process at that time

Sounds reasonable for ICANN satff to explain this with more details.
However, if there is any input from constituencies or GA, we have to
think of considering them, too.

> item #4  please explain exactly what you are referring to here. I feel
> this topic is too vague and needs elaboration so that the members of the
> council can decide on its merit as an agenda item. do you have any
> proposal's here ? if so I believe it would be appropriate here to put them
> into writing and communicated to the other council members

Proposal why the relations between WGs and NC should be dealt with
[This should be more elaborated by other WG members or NC members]

1. There has been accumulated frustration within WG-C regarding NC's
    reversed(which can be very subjectively interpreted) decision on WG's
    report since last April's NC recommendation to the ICANN Board.

2. Such frustration has been developed into strong skepticism that
    it is useless for Working Group members to work hard on reaching
    "ROUGH CONSENSUS" which can be easily or arbitrarily reversed
    in the NC meeting.

3. DNSO/ICANN process is in its initial stage which needs lots of
    further Working Groups' works are urgently expected such as
    "UDRP monitoring" working group which was suggested in LA.
    However, if this community is filled with distrust and cynicism
    how can we move forward in the future?

4. For the last, I am going to attach a message which carries such
disppointed concern in WG vs NC.
From: "Ellen Rony" <erony@MARIN.K12.CA.US>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Squatters move in on NET names.

> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >Perhpas it's time to request that a WG be established?
> What have WGs ultimately accomplished? One was disbanded.  For anaother,
> after a year of intense discussion, the consensus of WG-C to open up 6-10
> new gTLDs was overlooked by the Names Council in favor of a much more
> conservative plan.
> After 9 months of deliberations, WG-B was practically usurped in the last
> 15 minutes by the IPC, which submitted a Sunrise+20 Proposal on deadline.
> Forget a working group for this.  It's a job for ObviousMan.

> item#5 I feel it would be a good time to take a look at the WG E report
> but it has so far has only been posted for comment a bit less than 2
> I feel it is too early for the council to make specific recommendations or
> take a public position as we could be criticized for not allowing adequate
> time for comments and their review.
> in the past we have always allowed at least 4 weeks for this comment
> (a policy that the NCDHC constituency and you in particular have been most
> supportive of) and I personally do not feel it would be appropriate to
> modify this policy at this time.  if the council wishes to make a proposal
> to modify future notice periods for items like this it would be a good
> to consider that proposal

Yes, you are definitely RIGHT.
It should have 4 weeks comment period. Hopely, more.:-)
I put this on the table for the working group development report
to NC with a very short time period.

> item #7 this is an essential agenda item. we are well into our second year
> and still having issues like this on our plates.
> hopefully staff and Elizabeth will have a brief report on the progress
> since the last meeting

Yes, I agree.

> we need to be more specific with regard to the following areas
> a. secretariat operation
> b. specific methodology for receiving payments from constituencies
> c. how do we deal with delinquent constituencies (I.e. monetary penalties,
> sanctions, loss of voting rights etc ?)

This issue(c) may not be a smooth issue, so it is expected to share
the different ideas among constituencies earlier than the meeting.
Such as every constituency should share an equal contribution to
DNSO regardless of commercial vs non-commercial?

> item # 8 please elaborate a bit more on this topic. what do you feel we
> do here and how do you feel we can accomplish this

Just like frustration of WG-C members in the DNSO/ICANN process,
there has been visible(invisible) and audible(inaudible) frustration
from developing countries regarding the way the policy has been
established so far.

It is a pity that we don't have any substantial solution to this at this
moment, however, I wish very thoughtful members of NC can go through
this hurdle.

> with respect to the proposal regarding the wg-c 6 items. I discussed this
> with staff and it is entirely too late for consideration at yokahama by
> board of items like Philip is proposing. I personally find no problem in
> recognizing the relevance in the gtld consideration process  of the items
> specifically covered in the 4/11/00 consensus call item #2 but share the
> same concerns elaborated in the wg-c chairs report of 4/17/00  that "that
> the principles (while well-meant) were not useful or meaningful, and were
> too vague and subjective to serve as technical requirements"

I hope Philip can explain about this part.

> I would also like to propose another agenda item as follows:
> after almost 2 years of DNSO operation I feel it would be a good idea for
> the names council to consider a little "self reflection" and take a close
> look at how we can make this body which represents such a diverse set of
> interests sharing a universal commonality  more efficient and effective in
> the future.

Totally AGREE. That's why I put item # 4 and item 8 to self-reflect
for the future move.

> it is also my understanding that the board may have some additional items
> they wish to put before the council for their
> assistance & review.

As far as I understand, the other way around.
However, if there is any specific item the Board wants us to deal with,
it would be no problem to take care of this.

I hope I didn't mar your lingering holiday mood by this tight schedule
I look forward to finalizing NC agenda as soon as possible.



> my very best wishes to you and I look forward to seeing you in yokahama
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: YJ Park <yjpark@aptld.org>
> To: <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:32 AM
> Subject: [council] Please make comments on
> > Dear Council,
> >
> > Due to time constraints and lack of responses to
> > the coming Yokohama Names Council meeting
> > where we are supposed to discuss tons of substantials issues,
> > I am posting a draft agenda to have more productive meeting.
> >
> > If I can't hear further response from you within 24 hours,
> > I will interpret this as your silent recognition and
> > post this agenda to the relevant groups such as "GA"
> > and 7 constituencies to deepen our discussion based upon
> > their responses.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > YJ
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                          Draft Agenda
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Place: Main Hall at Yokohama Pacifico Hotel
> > Date: July 14, Friday 1300 - 1700
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1. Roll Call
> >
> > 2. Agenda update
> >
> > 3. New Top Level Domains: The selection process
> >     Any recommendation from Names Council Needed?
> >     1310 - 1430
> >
> > 4.The relations between WGs and Names Council
> >     based upon responses from WG-C.
> >     1430 - 1530
> >
> > 5. Working Group E's Final Report
> >     1530 - 1545
> >
> > 6. New Working Group Formation Proposal Review
> >     1545 - 1600
> >
> > 7. Budget Issues.
> >     1600 - 1630
> >
> > 8. Developing Coutries' perspective
> >     1630 - 1650
> >
> > 9. AOB
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >                            [End of Message]
> >
> >

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>