From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #102 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, July 18 2000 Volume 01 : Number 102 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:58:05 +0800 From: "YJ Park" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [council] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach for pu... Kathy wrote: > I would like to thank WG-E Co-Chairs Kilnam Chon and YJ Park, > and all of WG-E, for a job well done. Thank you. Taking this opportunity, I would like to propose a NC teleconference before Yokohama to discuss our agenda and further actions. Candidate Dates can be - ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. June 29 Thursday any other choice for this week? II. July 6 Thursday any other choice for this week? - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding Ken, the chairman of Names Council, has been busy and many of us, too. Therefore, I am just submitting my informal agenda here for the coming teleconference. Regards, YJ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Draft Agenda - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda update 3.The relations between WGs and Names Council based upon responses from WG-C. Many(Some ?) Working Group C participants have expressed NC reversed their own consensus which we didn't intend to. The clarification is needed for the further working group's works in this DNSO/ICANN process. 4. New Top Level Domains According to April 18/19's NC's recommendation NC asked the ICANN staff to invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry. However, the selection process is not clear enough in the ICANN staff's document(http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#III posted June 13) If my understanding is not correct, please inform me of it. Any recommendation from Names Council regarding this matter? 5. At Large Membership and Elections No concern from NC? 6. Funding Issues. 7. AOB - ------------------------------------------------------------- [End of Message] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:47:10 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Re: [council] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach Dear YJ, WG-C was highly factionalized, however the sentiment you have captured in your comments on the relations between WGs and the NC was not unique to any one of WG-C's factions. Had WG-C not been without a NC co-chair for the last half of its working life, and its sole co-chair intent to move on to other interests after mid-April -- and had the WG-C participants expected their task to be ongoing at this point, then this sentiment would be made much sharper than it has been. Personally I would have lead a motion to sanction Philip Sheppard. However, the issue is only of interest if the NC intends to continue the use of Working Groups, and desires continuity of participants, and of course, WG-C may have been sui generis. In addition, http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#III does not contain a reference to a selection process or processes, as you noted in your second item. As the submitter of a "Statement of Interest in Proposing a New TLD" to the tld-interest ICANN mailing list (June 14th, 2000) I was, and remain, acutely aware of this lack. It isn't too late for the NC to adopt the recommendations of Kent Crispin on the subject of selection process (or applicant mentoring), they remain the best attempt in good faith to solve this vexing problem. To motivate our concerns, we are aware of the fact that not only do most members of the NC find the idea of Indians Nations requesting access to the DNS root as peers of Colonial States, an idea in very poor taste, even if aggregated, this view is shared by some members of the ICANN staff and its Board. We are in effect betting on another view being held by the Board as a whole. Resolution 00.34, adopting Recommendation RC 99-1, which declined to identify fact or harm issues and asserted that there was no Indigenous Group, only two individuals, is guidance that our bet is unlikely to pay off. I'd like to comment now on your May 8th paper, as a former coordinator of a Constituency proposal and former participant in WG-C and co-author of a forthcoming "Proposal" written under the general and specific authorization of the National Council of Indian Chiefs (NCAI) and individual Tribal and Band Executives and Councils. In "Developing Countries' Perspective Regarding wg-b and wg-c process" the issue of systemic error arising out of Early Adopter preference is clearly identified. Late Adopters in any guise, commercial, non-commercial, even regulatory, educational and operational, "have been under-represented in this process". Additionally, as your paper recognizes, cultural differences favor parties intent upon expropriation, either of the ICANN process, or of Intellectual Property, or of the notion that the very legitimacy of their acts is not self evident and a settled matter of International or National law. I really do wish you luck on getting a thoughtful reading on the situation Developing Countries face as Late Adopters. Like yourselves, we came to the table prepared to work for progress, preservation and necessary compromises, but we're not happy with the seating arrangements. They ensure the divide between the privilged Early Adopters and the unprivileged Late Adopters is made worse, not better. Eric Brunner for the NAA Registry Group, Registrars, and Registrants ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:04:46 -0400 From: "Ken Stubbs" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [council] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach for pu... hello YJ i have had some discussions with other names council members and find that many of us are working on very tight schedules to be able to facilitate the time block necessary for the ICANN meeting. many are travelling and some on holiday. to that end i personally feel that it would be best to concentrate on making the yokahama meeting as effective and am very interested in encouraging active discussions in yokahama around the areas of global outreach and our ongoing budget issues. with respect to the at-large membership elections... i personally feel that it would not necessarily be appropriate for the DNSO or names council in particular to take positions on at-large membership election issues. as an individual member of the at-large body, (my family & i use the internet regularly for the many services and benefits it provides us as individuals) , i am very interested in the process but feel that i can only comment and participate in that area as an individual internet user with that specific perspective . i look forward to seeing you in yokahama and encourage agenda item proposals for that meeting my very best wishes ken stubbs - ----- Original Message ----- From: YJ Park To: ; Cc: ; Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [council] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach for pu... > Kathy wrote: > > > I would like to thank WG-E Co-Chairs Kilnam Chon and YJ Park, > > and all of WG-E, for a job well done. > > Thank you. > > Taking this opportunity, I would like to propose a NC teleconference > before Yokohama to discuss our agenda and further actions. > > Candidate Dates can be > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > I. June 29 Thursday any other choice for this week? > II. July 6 Thursday any other choice for this week? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Understanding Ken, the chairman of Names Council, > has been busy and many of us, too. > > Therefore, I am just submitting my informal > agenda here for the coming teleconference. > > Regards, > > YJ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Draft Agenda > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Roll Call > > 2. Agenda update > > 3.The relations between WGs and Names Council > based upon responses from WG-C. > > Many(Some ?) Working Group C participants have expressed > NC reversed their own consensus which we didn't intend to. > The clarification is needed for the further working group's works > in this DNSO/ICANN process. > > 4. New Top Level Domains > > According to April 18/19's NC's recommendation NC asked > the ICANN staff to invite expressions of interest from parties > seeking to operate any new gTLD registry. > > However, the selection process is not clear enough in the ICANN > staff's document(http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#III > posted June 13) If my understanding is not correct, > please inform me of it. > > Any recommendation from Names Council regarding this matter? > > 5. At Large Membership and Elections > > No concern from NC? > > 6. Funding Issues. > > 7. AOB > ------------------------------------------------------------- > [End of Message] > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:13:12 +0800 From: "YJ Park" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [council] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach for pu... Dear Ken, Thank you for your explanation. > to that end i personally feel that it would be best to concentrate on making > the yokahama meeting as effective and am very interested in encouraging > active discussions in yokahama around the areas of global outreach and our > ongoing budget issues. Can I interpret NC doesn't need any teleconference before Yokohama to have more effective discussion in Yokohama recharging ourselves?:-) I myself also have two more trips before Yokohama. However, I think this pre-meeting would be very valuable for many NC members despite our busy schedules. Looking forawrd to seeing you in Yokohama, too I hope we can pin down the schedule for this asap. Seeking your understandings from NC members..... Regards, YJ Candidate Dates can be - ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. June 29 Thursday any other choice for this week? II. July 6 Thursday any other choice for this week? - ------------------------------------------------------------------- According to your comments and inputs from others, some changes have been made. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Draft Agenda - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda update 3.The relations between WGs and Names Council based upon responses from WG-C. Many(Some ?) Working Group C participants have expressed NC reversed their own consensus which we didn't intend to. The clarification is needed for the further working group's works in this DNSO/ICANN process. 4. New Top Level Domains According to April 18/19's NC's recommendation NC asked the ICANN staff to invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry. However, the selection process is not clear enough in the ICANN staff's document(http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#III posted June 13) If my understanding is not correct, please inform me of it. Any recommendation from Names Council regarding this matter? 5. Budget Issues. 6. New Working Group Formation Proposal Review 7. AOB - ------------------------------------------------------------- [End of Message] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:39:38 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: [council] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach At 12:47 PM 6/23/00 -0400, Eric Brunner wrote: >In addition, http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#III does not >contain a reference to a selection process or processes, as you noted in >your second item. As the submitter of a "Statement of Interest in Proposing >a New TLD" to the tld-interest ICANN mailing list (June 14th, 2000) I was, >and remain, acutely aware of this lack. Can someone point me to where the tld-interest list is archived? >It isn't too late for the NC to adopt the recommendations of Kent Crispin >on the subject of selection process (or applicant mentoring), they remain >the best attempt in good faith to solve this vexing problem. Also, where can Kent's proposal be found? Thanks, Best Regards, Simon - -- ### ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:15:35 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] 50 grand to enter the pagent Oki all (about 148 people are still subscribed to wg-c & wg-c-digest), Had WG-C actually not screwed up on the question of proposal evaluations, and set aside the drooling and raving for a few weeks last March, the bid to entry fee might today be something on the order of a few days of a few reasonable people's time at their pro-bono-to-guaranteed-available rates. I know ICANN needs a revenue stream, but I'd like $50,000 worth of work performed by the proposal evaluators so the proposants get something out of the exercise. In a perfect world, my group would come up with the fee (how is an exercise left to the imaginative reader) and deposit it with ISC to transform "desire" (plus cash) into "capability". In an imperfect world, we send our fee, and recieve a form letter in time for Christmas, and not be any the wiser for the exercise, nor have a clue as to how the money was actually spent. Details at http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16jul00.htm, Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #102 **************************