Re: [council] comments - your proposed draft terms of reference

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

Hello Ken and all,

Wow! Thank you for circulating Review WG's terms of reference
on behalf of me.:-)

Let me answer to your question and concerns below.

===========================================
Ken's question:
===========================================
1. why did you not see fit to distribute this in advance to the full
council considering the fact that you are seeking the council's agreement
on this "inclusive working group" it would seem to me (speaking as
an individual member) that it would be most important to receive
"all perspectives" in the proposed scope and goals for this working group ?
===========================================

There has been a small group which I personally have tried to seek
some responses regarding review WG since Marina del Rey meeting
where Theresa is in as chair of NC Review Task Force in the spirit of
real DNSO review. - more consulatation, more bottoms up process -

As I remember, the deadline for NC docu this time is Dec 13,
which will be tomorrow, so I sent it to them first for any correction
which you suggested below, thanks! "Balanced Amendment"
will be my focus as I noted in the draft.

This draft is supposed to go to the council tomorrow together with
"Whois Committee" report. Taking advantage of this, I hope every
relevant document can be presented to the NC meeting until then
as we promised to ourselves.

===============================================
Ken's comment
===============================================
2.There is in the early section of this proposal certain "personal opinions"
being presented,  (specifically:"Skepticism and apathy have developed
among many participants due to a failure to see past Working Groups'
own consensus reflected in the later actions of the Names Council or
ICANN Board") which would incline any many readers to believe that
the working group is being "lead in a specific direction" rather than being
developed for the purpose of studying the current system and making
proposals to make it more effective and inclusive "for all" in the future.

my personal feeling is that this section of the preamble is more of an
opinion
rather than a positive statement of objectives of the group and could create
dissention & controversy  at a point in this process where it is not
necessary
to do so.
===============================================

Due to my unsophisticated way of English, that was my best try.
As I wrote, I will be happy to see any friendly amendment so it would
be much more effective for you to suggest it since you appear to have
lots of thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

=============================================
Ken's concerns and suggestion
=============================================
the creation of and future work of this working group should no be an
"adversarial process" but a collaborative & cooperative one.

in summary, i believe that it is essential that we get off to a good start
with
this group and all work hard to avoid any possibility of "pre-concieved"
images of biases here. we must insure that, given the sensitive nature of
the
topic that  this group remains "totally inclusive", open to all views and
perspectives and unbiased in its operation.

 to that end i notice that there are no names of any members of the IP  or
ISP constituancies on the mailing list, (please feel free to correct me if i
am wrong here ), you have currently been distributing the draft document
to and would suggest that you make it a point to reach out to this group
as well in the formulative process to avoid any perception of  bias or
non-inclusion.
============================================

Ken, I 100% agree upon the concerns you expressed here.
This small group was invited either they were ex-chairs of WGs
or they showed interests in Review WG formation. And so far,
this group has been waiting for its formal formation by Dec NC
teleconference.

As I described, Review WG's membership structure should be
open to "Seven" constituencies and how to keep chime with
each other would be "The Most Critical Priority" for this group.

If IP, ISP, or any other constituency which may feel isolated
in this consulatation process, please let me know.

Appreciating Ken's positive suggestions and comments, I am
looking forward to your friendly amendment proposal.

YJ