[council] Re: NCDNHC group process

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

Dear Alejandro,

You wrote on Saturday, November 25, 2000 2:31 AM

> I agree that finding out about the decision-making procedures of the other
> constituencies is valuable. Can you start that investigation from your
> position in the Names Council, as a friendly inquiry?

Appreciating your encouragement regarding this survey as NC member,
I do want to highlight NC's previous efforts such as Review Task Force
which submitted a series of self-reflecting questions to the Board
and to create Review Working Group during MdR's Names Council
meeting which awaits NC's final approval before it is announced soon.

Review Working Group which is designed to invite "seven" constituencies
would be the most natural open forum people can compare
what have been done in other constituencies such as from decision-making
procedures to decision-affecting procedure in the DNSO in general.

My proposal was presented as follows and so far I've got support
from Dany and no specific comment on this was made yet.

Therefore, I am hereby asking again as a "friendly inquiry" to NC
to approve this WG to get DNSO a true-sense of bottom-up
consensus developing body within the ICANN.

[Action is needed]
Earlier motion: If we can reach an agreement as soon as possible,
as it is put here, this WG can start from Nov. 27.

If we recall how the previous WGs has been formed since San Jose,
they didn't have to get approval from NC before they were formed.
After WG was formed, NC recognized the charter instead.

Trusting this additional formality prior to its formation will provide
better result, I do request NC to take "friendly action" asap.:-)

Thank you both Alejandro and NC for your cooperation.
YJ
========================================
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 4:27 PM

Let me briefly describe right now and more detailed plans are
expected to be developed within the Working Group later.

1) how Review Working Group is composed of
2) the Scope of Review WG
3) Timeframe of Review WG and
4) how this group is going to work with Review TF and NC.

=======================
Review Working Group, WG F
=======================

1. Call for participation through 7 constituencies and GA

Hope this WG can be inclusive as much as posible for the balanced
recommendations.

Call for election for co-working group chair among members
as soon as this group is in place.

2. Scope of WG

1st Stage: This Working Group can start from answering to the Review
                TF's questionaire which was presented to the Board.

2 nd Stage: Call for DNSO recommendation paper.

3 rd Stage: Take a voting process to adopt the WG's position paper
                  which will be presented to the NC.

3. Timeframe of Review WG

Nov. 27 - open end : Call for Participation in this WG

Dec. 4 : WG Charter Discussion
Dec. 11 : WG Charter Finalization
Dec. 11 - Jan.? : WG's Interim Report during Jan's NC teleconference
Jan.?  - Feb ? : WG's Interim Report during Feb's NC teleconference

Melbourne Meeting: Submission to NC as WG's position under
                                assumption that it can find consensus.

4. The relationship with Review TF and NC

Review WG and Review TF and NC:

Since WG is within DNSO and TF is within NC, it is desirable
for two groups to exchange views and info to achieve their goals
as each input channel to NC and and advisory body to the NC.
==========================================

If you have any comment on this, please do so.
If we can reach an agreement as soon as possible, as it is put here,
this WG can start from Nov. 27.
==========================================
                                [End of Message]