[ncdnhc-discuss] Fw: [ntepptf] TF Report made during GA in Montevideo

[YJ Park]

Dear Members,

This is the draft report which I sent to New TLD evaluation TF
for the comments yesterday. There was no comment yet and
Stuart today issued the draft report following this. 

As you can see here, we have made very little progress which
I feel sorry for. As always, your comments will be invited and
welcomed.

Regards,
YJ

-------------------------------------------------------
From: "YJ Park 
To: "New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 8:54 PM
Subject: [ntepptf] TF Report made during GA in Montevideo


> Task Force members,
> 
> Maybe we can start to recollect what we have discussed in
> Montevideo. This is the report made during DNSO GA, which
> is also expected to be forwarded to NCDNHC as a report
> after getting your feedback first.
> 
> If there is any further comment, please let me be aware of that.
> On the other hand, I think I missed substantial discussion about
> Intellectual Property issues which I remember we dealt with for
> a while.
> 
> Thank you,
> YJ
> 
> New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force formation
> was announced in Stockholm in a response to Board resolution.
> 
> A chair of Task Force, Stuart Lynn, ICANN President asked
> Names Council to send DNSO representatives to this Task Force
> after Stockholm meeting.
> 
> Each constituency suggested no more than two representatives
> by July 12th. Names Council forwarded the list of DNSO representatives
> and it was confirmed as such.
> 
> Mike Heltzer, IP
> Sebastien Bachollet, Marilyn Cade, Business
> Vany Martinez, YJ Park, NCDNHC
> Jaap Akkerhaus, ccTLD
> 
> Note: When this report was made during GA, the question was made
> whether this Task Force is going to accept more volunteers from 
> unrepresented constituencies such as Registrar which explicitly
> expressed that they feel sorry for not meting the deadline put by NC.
> 
> Finally, New TLD Task Foce kicked off on August 1 together with
> representatives from PSO and GAC.
> 
> TF was requested by a chair to consider 4 steps to be taken
> 
> 1st: To define the areas based upon proposed one by the Board:
>         They are technical, Business, and Legal one.
> 2nd: To develop a list of questions to be examined in each area.
> 3rd: To develop measurement process
> 4th: To develop a realistic time schedule
> 
> After one month email discussion(early August - early September),
> TF could reach a consensus to explore 4 areas which include "process"
> or "selection process" in addtion to the identified by the Board. Further
> general questions or general areas can be added. 
> 
> TF had a meeting on September 6 for four hours meeting in Montevideo,
> some of them participated through teleconference chaired by Stuart.
> 
> After recognizing the charter(it was circulated through email earlier) 
> in Montevideo, TF started to discuss a list of questions 9 each in the
> area of technical and business.
> 
> Performance-conscious evaluation was widely discussed and some 
> viewed multilingual TLD should be incorporated in this process and 
> some reservation was expressed in that this process will delay the
> whole process in general.
> 
> Due to time constraints, legal and process area could not be covered
> and decided to have a teleconference two weeks from Montevideo.
> (This should be changed to TBD at this current stage.)
> 
> Under limited time, the difference between 'sponsored' vs 'unsponsored'
> was discussed with an effort to clarify various terminologies.
> 
>         - Chartered vs Unchartered
>         - Sponsored vs Unsponsored
>         - Restricted vs Unrestricted
> 
> The necessity to divide two track evaluation between sponsored and
> unsponsored was positively considered. On the other hand, the need to
> clarify who will conduct a real evaluation based upon the guideline to 
> be poublished by this Task Force was raised and will be discussed
> later.
> 
> Seeking your understanding on slow progress of this TF, I would like to
> invite your inputs to get this TF move forward in a proper manner as 
> some of you wish.
> 
> TF aims to post an interim report after gleaning relevant data and 
> thoughts hopefully in LA after having several teleconferences. TF also
> plans have another f2f meeting possibly on Nov. 11.
>