DNSO Archives: [council]

[Michael Chicoine <mchicoine@pol.net>]

I apologize for the delay in responding to the recent emails, but a 
good friend of mine committed suicide over Thanksgiving weekend and 
needless to say my mind has been elsewhere.

Clearly there is still confusion about my intentions about my motion 
in LA, and since I do not believe we had a meeting of the minds, I 
would like to withdraw it or present it for review and a revote at our 
next teleconference call.

Right before the LA meeting, YJ sent an email referencing a 10/03/00 
email which can be found at 
www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00054.html.  As you will 
see from this email, it deals specifically with the issue regarding 
the press release relating to pre-registraiton and some NC members 
concerns that the position stated by the NC was not "blessed" by the 
entire NC.  In that email, you will see that it deals soley with the 
issue of formation, composition, responsibility and dissolution of 
committees within the NC, the scope of the Chair, and the Names 
Council Position Adoption Process.  This was the email to which I 
referred to in the LA meeting, and had no intention of creating a 
"Review Working Group" as suggested by YJ.  

Of course, if YJ is suggesting this WG outside of the context of my 
motion, then it can be dealt with as such.  I simply wanted to make 
sure that my motion was not misunderstood to handle the issues 
presented in YJ's proposed WG F.

With respect to YJ's WGF, has WGD ever completed a report outlining 
the process for the formation and functioning of working groups.  
While I agree that the working groups in the past have had little 
formal process, I do not think that is a reason to blindly forge 
ahead. I would hope that like the formation of the Intake Committee, a 
proposal for WG formation and functions could be hammered out rather 
quickly.  

Also, the suggested WG sounds exactly like what the DNSO review 
Committee is responsible for and thus I am not exactly sure why we are 
duplicating effort or why these suggestions are not being handled 
through the commitee?  Theresa explained the lack of input from the 
Constituecies and the GA (most likely due to the excitement of the new 
TLD issue), and my understanding was that the DNSO review committee 
was going to try to reenergize interest and make another request for 
responses.  

With respect to the October minutes, I agree that they should not be 
amended to include an NC member's personal comments.

With respect to the agenda for the next teleconference call, since I 
am one day too late in submitting a reqeust, I would like people to 
email me as to whether they believe we should have a UDRP review, and 
if so, what type of review would they like to see (the 
process/function).  I think this can be handled offline and I can 
accumulate the comments and assuming I get them in time, distribute 
them before the Dec 19th meeting and perhaps request 5 minutes at the 
end of the call if time permits.  Please note that I do not intend to 
do anything but accumulate the information.  I am not making any 
decisions or proposals, I simply think that pending the creation of a 
formal NC commitee or WG structure, I could at least get the ball 
rolling.  Some of the issues I have become aware of include the right 
to an appeal, the publicaiton of complaints and answers, the role of 
precedential effect, and the geogrpahic diversity of Panel members.