DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [council] Please make comments on

I pretty much agree with Theresa's points, and her theme that we need to be
practical in organizing the agenda, but would add one:  I think that we need
to devote some time to the topic of the resources available  to the DNSO's.
(This is a broader subject than the budget)  If you think about many of the
shortcomings of the DNSO (almost regardless of which shortcomings are the
important ones to you), you will probably conclude that somewhere they
result in whole or in part from a lack of resources.   Money will not solve
every (DNSO) problem, but its absence can cause, or contribute to the cause
of, quite a few.  So I'd hope we would spend time discussing how the DNSO
currently obtains resources, how much resources it should have, and how it
might obtain resources differently in the future.  

This could be subsumed under Ken's suggestion for a self reflection
discussion (in which case, proposed agenda item #7 on the budget should take
no more than a half hour and maybe less) or it might be addressed under
proposed agenda item #7 on the budget, in which case the budget discussion
should get more time than a half hour.


-----Original Message-----
From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 12:23 PM
To: 'Ken Stubbs'; council@dnso.org; 'YJ Park'
Subject: RE: [council] Please make comments on

Hi --

A few comments, and given the back and forth, I've chosen to respond to this
message as opposed to the others to prevent confusion.

I would like to thank YJ for taking the initiative on proposing a draft
agenda, and I hope we take the time now to come up with revisions and
adjustments based on the ongoing discussions. As was noted earlier, because
of the long weekend in the US, many were not on e-mail, so we must allow for
the appropriate amount of discussion before adopting any final agenda. (I'm
sure everyone can appreciate the issue of holiday's -- all regions have
their holidays that as a global NC we must try to fully respect.)

# 3: I support Ken's suggestion of requesting ICANN staff to report to the
NC on the TLD expansion issue. I think this would be very useful.

# 4: I am a little confused about the scope, and large amount of time
allotted to this topic. I think that this is something that may be better
addressed by a Task Force. I volunteer to come to the NC meeting in Yokohama
with a proposal outlining this suggestion. I know it's an issue that Working
Group D has also been made aware of.

# 5: Working Group E has put much work into it's report. I have to agree
that it has not been posted long enough for the NC, or at least for me, to
be comfortable making specific recommendations or to take a public position.
I would like to ensure that it has, like other Working Group reports, been
up for the equal comment time. If we start shortening comment time
arbitrarily, we start ignoring our own decisions.

# 6: I am not sure I understand what new working group formation proposal
review means -- is this for a new working group, or just on overall
formations? If the latter, that's something working group D should be
involved with.

# 7: Budget should be discussed, could we be sure everyone reviews the past
discussions so we can move through this and reach any decisions necessary.

# 8: Developing countries perspective is important to discuss, as is I
think, overall issue of making sure all regions' perspectives are included
and addressed. Discussion should focus on what improvements to current ways
will ensure all regions are heard (e.g., should we consider translations in
our budget?) and what is it that we are not doing now that could be done to
continue to encourage participation.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 7:05 AM
> To: council@dnso.org; YJ Park
> Subject: Re: [council] Please make comments on
> YJ and all
> we have just completed the 4th of July holiday weekend  (4
> days) which is
> probably our biggest holiday here in the USA. many of the
> members have not
> even returned to their homes and have been off e-mail for the
> last few days.
> putting an arbitrary time limit on your proposed agenda would
> not be at all
> appropriate here. we should wait until Friday to give other
> names council
> members the opportunity to comment and make suggestions.
> let me make some comments on the proposed agenda items - not
> necessarily in
> order
> 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
> item #4  please explain exactly what you are referring to
> here. I feel that
> 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
> item#5 I feel it would be a good time to take a look at the
> WG E report here
> but it has so far has only been posted for comment a bit less
> than 2 weeks.
> 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 period
> (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 time
> to consider that proposal
> 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 made
> since the last meeting
> 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 ?)
> item # 8 please elaborate a bit more on this topic. what do
> you feel we must
> do here and how do you feel we can accomplish this
> 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 the
> 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 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.
> it is also my understanding that the board may have some
> additional items
> they wish to put before the council for their
> assistance & review.
> 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 >>>