DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[council] Re: WG Review Comments

on 15/01/01 0:57, Theresa Swinehart at Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com wrote:

> Dany,
> I've been reading these last communications under this subject heading -- is
> it the case that the comments you'd sent me on the 8th, copying the Names
> Council, were not circulated to the non-commercial constituency. If so, then
> that must be made clear in what you'd submitted to the task force, i.e.,
> that they don't represent the constituency. If I as a BC representative were
> to forward comments on behalf of the Business Constituency, I could never
> forward them without vetting them with the constituency (the entire
> constituency, even if no members respond).
> Kent, please forward the comments you'd mentioned in your earlier note to
> Dany intended for the task force. I understand from your note that it's an
> extensive document, answering all questions.
> Dany, please clarify what the comments you'd forwarded the task force
> represent, and to whom they were circulated, ie, on who's behalf are they.
> Seems to me one of the issues here is how process in constituency works --
> something the review is looking at.
Hi Theresa
The note, dated on January was on behalf of the NCDNHC adcom members, and
clearly stated as such. This was not a position of the constituency, and did
never pretend to be so!

It was fully consistent with the opinion that I expressed during the Dec NC
teleconf, that creating a subgroup for the DNSO review in charge of
transmitting only answer to the review TF within 3 weeks (including the Xmas
break) was a non-sense, but a very efficient way avoid direct input from the
DNSO members (constituency and GA members) to the NC!
I abstain to vote on this, because YJ was designated as WG chair. I should
have voted against otherwise.

As the formal deadline for TF review input was maintained on Jan 15th, I
sent you a contribution of some members, quoted as such, on Jan 14th, 9:45
pm local time, upon request of these members, and because YJ Park's e-mail
was not functioning properly at that time. I decided to do so, only to be
sure that some contribution from some NCDNHC members (not all of them) was
transmitted. It should have been better that those members contributed
directly, or through YJ, but it was not that way, when I had a chance to
check my mail on Jan 14th..

To submit a fully approved position/resolution of the NCDNHC constituency,
it would have been necessary to have an on-line vote, but regarding the way
NCDNHC functions, the three weeks allocated to the WG would not have been
enough, just to organize the vote! (it took only 1.5 month to approve the
MdR resolutions after the ICANN meeting). Difficult to imagine any decision
taken without several weeks posting, some more weeks discussing and another
week for voting. This kind of time scale is fully consistent with my
critical comment sent on Jan 8th!

Neither the Jan 8th nor the Jan 14th comments was pretending to represent
the whole constituency position.

Sorry for this late answer to your concern, but I am rather late with my

Best regards
> Thank you,
> Theresa

Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE

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