Re: [nc-whois] Re: Teleconference notes
I'm sorry for miss the call I couldn't connect
At 01:32 AM 11/22/2001, Paul M. Kane wrote:
I agree with YJ's
I too am in favour of every submission being read by the
I'm not sure on the efectiveness of this action until we define a
specific method to read them.
I mean, if we have a thousand pages to read and no formal mechanism of
reporting what we read, it will be like we are reading and entire
book and after that explain what the book is all about, our report will
be very diferent among us.
Seriously, I don't think we should look for demagogy, but for best
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.
duress(!) as Chair I acknowledge the will of the majority on the call
to increase the number of representatives with access to the data.
the compromise was ONE member of the Committee, with ONE (or two!!)
observers/helpers, but one needs to be careful that specific
read by the observers were not overlooked when drafting the
In the other hand we must be careful no to overestimate a single response
or a group of them.
At this point let me ask you if we will maintain the same weight for the
diferent type of responses:
Resps Type weight
1048 Comm 36.3%
1017 Indiv 35.2%
230 ISP 8.0%
219 Other 7.6%
207 NonCom 7.2%
130 Rgstrars 4.5%
35 Gov 1.2%
For example, if we find an unanimous response on the
goverment type of respondants, does it means that it represents the 1.2%
? or Should we give a different allocation of weights for the type of
We need to work on the framework
for analysis, appreciating that it is a
Top Level Domain .MX
fluid assessment and the parameters will be subject to change. Can
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
public comment and review of the interim report. Thus with the
have the interim report out well in advance of the Ghana meeting -
face to face meeting Constituency meetings in Ghana can discuss the
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
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
YJ. Please note. The role of this Committee is to identify if
community has a common view on certain issues and to establish where
work is necessary. This is just Phase 1 - our remit is NOT to
policy to the Board at this stage. In Phase 2 - we need to ensure
parties have the opportunity to express their views on the
issues where more work is considered necessary... before working on
YJ Park wrote:
> Thank you for the notes.
> Seeking your undersatnding, I want to provide some
> During the teleconference, it is usually for me to make
> Page 1.
> (2nd)Cade:The committee was divided on this idea. A couple of
> people said that everything should be read: Younger and
> I remember Marilyn didn't mention my neme when she said this,
> however please add my name into this category as scriber's
> by request. I do share this view.
> Page 2
> YJ Park: In favour of fewer members, but with one more member
> from each constituency.
> In principle, to have more people is desirable, however, if it is
> consensus of this group, one more member from each
> is agreeable.
> Page 3
> Park: This timeframe may be impractical, too ambitious.
> This timeframe may be impractical based upon the other ICANN
> works such as new TLD evaluation Task Force. This is the
> we can consider.
> "Interim draft report" is to be published mid-February
> public comments.
> Interim draft report is to be presented to NC and the
> "Final draft report" is to be published in May(two months)
> comments for 4 weeks public comments.
> The revised Final report is going to be presented to NC and
> 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.
Tel +52 (8)3875346
El contenido del presente mensaje de datos es confidencial. El Emisor no
es apoderado de NIC-Mexico ni tiene facultad alguna para obligar a
NIC-Mexico con la transmision y contenido del presente mensaje de datos,
incluyendo el (los) archivo(s) anexo(s).