DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-whois] Re: Teleconference notes

I agree with YJ's comments:

I too am in favour of every submission being read by the Committee.

My fear is that the Committee will become too large that it becomes
ineffective at drafting a report and 16 members is a large number. Under
duress(!) as Chair I acknowledge the will of the majority on the call was
to increase the number of representatives with access to the data. Thus
the compromise was ONE member of the Committee, with ONE (or two!!)
observers/helpers, but one needs to be careful that specific comments
read by the observers were not overlooked when drafting the report.

We need to work on the framework for analysis, appreciating that it is a
fluid assessment and the parameters will be subject to change.  Can we
all give it some thought over this w/end such that we can have an
exchange next week.??????????

Timeframe. We need to have timeline that optimises the time available for
public comment and review of the interim report.  Thus with the desire to
have the interim report out well in advance of the Ghana meeting - so
face to face meeting Constituency meetings in Ghana can discuss the draft
in detail -

Here's the proposed _target_ time line is:
     i) 4th Feb first cut of the interim report
    ii) 5-11th Feb internal review by the Committee of the first cut of
the interim report
    iii) 22nd Feb publish raw data and Interim report for review
    iv) 10-14th March ICANN Ghana
    v) 22Feb - 29th March close comment period (eg just over 4 weeks)
   vi) Review comments, and publish final report for NC consideration.

YJ.  Please note.  The role of this Committee is to identify if the
community has a common view on certain issues and to establish where more
work is necessary. This is just Phase 1 - our remit is NOT to recommend
policy to the Board at this stage.  In Phase 2 - we need to ensure all
parties have the opportunity to express their views on the identified
issues where more work is considered necessary... before working on the
Policy recommendations.

Best regards


YJ Park wrote:

> Timothy,
> Thank you for the notes.
> Seeking your undersatnding, I want to provide some ammendments.
> During the teleconference, it is usually for me to make comments
> properly.
> Page 1.
> (2nd)Cade:The committee was divided on this idea. A couple of
> people said that everything should be read: Younger and Sapiro.
> ....
> [Suggestion]
> I remember Marilyn didn't mention my neme when she said this,
> however please add my name into this category as scriber's note
> by request. I do share this view.
> Page 2
> YJ Park: In favour of fewer members, but with one more member
> from each constituency.
> [Suggestion]
> In principle, to have more people is desirable, however, if it is the
> consensus of this group, one more member from each constituency
> is agreeable.
> Page 3
> Park: This timeframe may be impractical, too ambitious.
> [Suggestion]
> This timeframe may be impractical based upon the other ICANN
> works such as new TLD evaluation Task Force. This is the timetable
> we can consider.
> "Interim draft report" is to be published mid-February for
> public comments.
> Interim draft report is to be presented to NC and the constituencies.
> "Final draft report" is to be published in May(two months) for public
> comments for 4 weeks public comments.
> The revised Final report is going to be presented to NC and the
> Board for their recognition.
> For the last, as far as I know GAC(especially EU) is very keen
> to know this issue and we may have to consider what kind of
> relations we want to build with them.
> Thanks,
> YJ

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