DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [wg-review] Multilingulaism in ICANN

Ken wrote:
doubt me if you wish about the communication gaps i mentioned above but 
look at the problems in the scheduling of this conference and 
the most recent e-mail interaction between you and YJ regarding the agenda 
and you can see why i am so concerned.

ken stubbs

(who is still somewhat confused because he received less than 1 days notice 
for a CRITICAL teleconference whose original time yet again may have already 
been informally changed ?????)

Hello Ken and all,

Let me explain where we have been.

1. Time Set

This teleconference was proposed on Jan. 16 with a proposal for Jan. 19.
And then later this was finally notified on Jan 19 for Jan. 23. 

However, your concern regarding short time notice is correct. Even though
this has been announced since Jan 16 as soon as its Jan. 15 report was sent
to the NC, there have been little response from members especially on time
for four days until I notify schedule with telephone #. 

This shows that the time frame set by NC really should be reconsidered 
and this group needs to find its focal responsibility to meet that end.

WG-Review group has been fumbling through to find the way under limited
scope, time and resources, which NC has to appreciate.

2. Agenda Set

Proceeding this process, I have noticed that how to draw its line is the
most important thing this group needs to come up with. As we all have watched,
this group skim through sometimes "UDRP" sometimes "ccTLD" sometimes "Funding"
sometimes "IDNH/IDNO" sometimes "DNSO as a structure from a bigger picture",
sometimes "procedure" sometimes "outreach" sometimes "multilingual Internet",
sometimes "No constituency" sometimes "Alternative model "sometimes "Consensus"

However, those concerns have been touched here should not be ignored at all
in the long term perspective. Therefore, as compromise, this WG-Review first
can expolore its very well focused subject which will be clarified in the
teleconference and together with other prioirties along with its working days
to reach its recommendation based upon the consensus. Please, remind NC that
too much stricted or limited time may bring more confusion rather than help
bottom-up process.

Regarding WG-Review agenda here, Greg and I have gleaned the whole issues
to sound how popele respond to.


>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Greg Burton 
>   To: Ken Stubbs 
>   Cc: Pilar Luque ; wg-review@dnso.org ; cctld-discuss@wwtld.org ; board@minc.org ; Karl Auerbach ; vcerf@MCI.NET 
>   Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:41 AM
>   Subject: Re: [wg-review] Multilingulaism in ICANN
>   At 06:03 AM 1/22/01, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>     i agree with your agenda and am very disappointed that the wg review
>     chairman has elected to try to "bury" these important issues in the context
>     of a DNSO review discussion when this problem clearly exists throughout the
>     entire ICANN structure (including  all SO's) .
>   I beg your pardon, Ken? I didn't choose to bring this discussion into WG-Review - the members of this Working Group did. Neither have I nor anyone else ever indicated that this is the only place it should be discussed. Pilar brought the issue up in this WG, and there was an extremely strong sentiment for discussing it here. In response to that interest, and in support of  your post, I brought it forward in the agenda, asked Pilar to summarize what had been discussed, and intend to treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves.
>     this is a serious mistake
>   "The outgoing chair of the NC believes it is a serious mistake to respond to the concerns of the members of WG-Review." So noted. 
>     bringing this issue into the wg-review is, in my opinion,  beyond the
>     mandate and charter of this WG and will only tend to diminish the importance
>     of this issue as it pertains to ALL ICANN activities, not just DNSO.
>   That's a curious position, for two reasons. The first is that Pilar brought this topic up here in a serious way, and you say that you agree with her agenda. That's a contradiction. Secondly, the topic is addressed directly in the draft report of the Task Force.  To quote:
>   "The DNSO should seek to continue efforts increase to ensure global participation for all. Some recommendations to help achieve this objective have been under discussion during the review process"
>   The reference to supporting documents in the draft report cites this Working Group's discussions. Perhaps you need to take this up with the Task Force, who clearly believe that this is an appropriate topic for DNSO discussion and efforts.
>   Characterizing this as attempting to "bury" the issue is both incorrect and insulting. I'm getting a bit concerned, Ken, about the nature of your participation, so please help me understand it. First you challenged the poll questions on constituencies, claiming the NC would want to know which constituencies the respondents belong to. You ignored the fact that the questions came from a Names Council task force. Then you attempted to discredit my decision to not join an existing constituency, even though it is based on an agreement with a statement of yours. Now this claim of attempting to bury the multilingual issue, when it has been brought forward in response to both working group interest and your post on the subject. Is this really appropriate behavior on your part?   One might draw the conclusion that you're trying to interfere with the WG, and discredit anything that emerges from it. If that description of your motivation is incorrect, please let us know exactly why y!
ou're following this easily discernable pattern of distortion. If it is correct, perhaps you might wish to explain to the board why you need to abuse your position on the NC to do this.
>   Regards,
>   Greg
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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