Re: [council] ICANN Advisory on Regland Lawsuit

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

Hello Erica,

I  think you are misrepresenting or misunderstaanding "your" position.

A: > I have never suggested that the NC delegated all its powers to Ken.

B: > Rather, as I said in my email, it was my understanding that the NC
    > agreed to delegate to Ken the authority to approve a media release.

What's the difference between A and B from the "result" perspective?
Both sentenses try to highlight Ken is the one who has "authority" or "full
delegation".

From where has your undersatnding been originated?
Did any NC member make a motion on this during the Sept. teleconference?

    No.

Did any NC member suggest this clearly enough to NC as a whole to reach
your own conclusion in the mailing list?

    No.

I think you seem to have been confusing your own private talks with public
NC meeting.

YJ

> While we might debate  the accuracvy of our respective memories or meeting
> notes,  I don't think there is any question that, if any authority was
> delegated to our Chair, it was delegated with the agreement of the NC for
a
> very limited purpose.
>
> errica
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> To: <mclaughlin@pobox.com>; <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 6:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Advisory on Regland Lawsuit
>
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> > > Let me (or Louis) know if you have any questions.
> > >
> > > <http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03nov00.htm>
> >
> > Yes, there are several procedural questions both to ICANN staff and
> council
> > and Nc's responsibility and roles in the new gTLD process.
> >
> > Regarding Advisory Body, this website says;
> >
> > On 29 September, ICANN's primary advisory body on domain name issues
> > - the Names Council of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization -
> > issued a statement warning consumers that .......
> >
> > However, as all of you recall, as soon as this was out,
> > I raised the concern who are Names Council here in this document.
> > As I clarified earlier, I am not included nor consulted with at all in
> this
> > process.
> >
> > Another concern is whether NC is expected to advise or not.
> >
> > It appears that NC - I am not sure who I am talking about, though -
> > arbitrarily declares that NC provides advice such as pre-regiostration
> case
> > and
> > sometimes strongly denounces ne advisor role in this new gTLD process.
> >
> > Let's suppose Erica's comment(below in her email) is right -
> >
> > NC delegated all the power to Ken, a chair of NC
> > - I still have no idea where this came from - who sometimes
> > declares that NC has a right to advise and sometimes
> > disavows its responsibility by saying that NC has no input in new gTLD
> > process.
> >
> > Therefore, my questions are
> > 1. NC position can be posted without proper consultation with NC as a
> whole?
> >     If yes, could you kindly refer to its ground?
> >
> > 2. What's the NC's function in the new gTLD process?
> >
> >     Advisory Body just as lawsuit describes?
> >     or Neutral Body which so-called fully delegated
> >
> > YJ
> > ============================================
> > FYI, I here attached all the relevant email exchanges NC has had.
> >
> > From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> > To: <council@dnso.org>
> > Cc: <icann-announce@icann.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:06 AM
> >
> > > To clarify this situation, this is not the Names Council document.
> > > This is the document voluntarily prepared by Paul(registrar
> constituency)
> > > and Philip(business constituency) together with ICANN staff, Louis and
> > > Andrew according to the teleconference on Sept. 19.
> > >
> > > During the Sept. 19 teleconference, the concern that this draft work
> > should
> > > be pre-circulated for the comments among Names Council was expressed.
> > > (Erica, registrar constituency) for further discussion.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I think it's premature to circulate this kind of document
> > > which was never tabled in the Names Council in advance and it starts
> > > with "names council warn......."
> >
> > From: "erica.roberts" <erica.roberts@telstra.com>
> > To: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>; <council@dnso.org>
> > Cc: <icann-announce@icann.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:31 AM
> >
> > > As I recall it, we agreed that Paul, Phillip and ICANN staff should
> draft
> > the
> > > release and that we delegated to Ken the power of final approval.
> >
> > From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> > To: "erica.roberts" <erica.roberts@telstra.com>; <council@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:53 AM
> >
> > > First, I don't think this was the case according to my memory.
> > > You didn't mention anything about Ken and his full power of approval
on
> > > this.
> > > At least, I was not included in the "we" delecgated.....
> > > How about other members?
> >
> > From: Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>
> > Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:10:29 +0200 (CEST)
> >
> > >Agree again with YJ
> > >Paul and Philip did volunteer for preparing a draft for this, but I do
> not
> > >remember that the automatic release was included, and certainly not
that
> > >Ken would have alone the full power of approval, without reviewing the
> > >draft by the NC
> >
> > From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@DNINET.NET>
> > To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 12:57 AM
> >
> > > THE NAMES COUNCIL HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INPUT INTO THE TLD
> > > PROPOSAL DECISION PROCESS.     (PARDON THE SHOUTING !!)
> > > i have as much input into the decision process as you do michael or as
> any
> > > ga member or any member of any constituancy  or any of the 75,000 +
> > members.
> > > i can write e-mails, i can post comments (although i havent yet but
will
> > in
> > > the near future) but that is as far as it goes.
> >
> >
>