[ncdnhc-discuss] Report on today's NC Conf. Call

[Harold J. Feld]

I was the only representative from the NCDNHC able to participate, 
unless either Erick or Chun joined while the call was in progress and I 
missed it.

1- Regarding NCDHC voting status: A meeting of the BC to address our 
reply to the show cause petition was scheduled for April 24.  At the 
start of the meeting, Phil Sheppard announced that ICANN staff and 
possibly ICANN counsel and possibly Alejandro (in his capacity as chair 
of the reform committee) would agree to brief the NC by conference call 
on April 24 and would take questions from NC.  This conflicts with the 
BC meeting.  BC was asked to move its meeting date.  I objected on the 
grounds that (a) I had requested this BC meeting over a month ago, and 
coordinating schedules of BC members had pushed the meeting off until 
April 24, and (b) unless the BC makes a recommendation to NC on the show 
cause, and the NC votes to take action, NCDNHC will lose voting 
privileges on May 13, 2002.  The NC agreed that NCDNHC voting rights 
would not be suspended until (a) the BC had met and (b) the NC had 
considered the BC recommendation and voted on it.  

2- The policy on electronic voting found at

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00063.html

was approved.

3- The NC spent the remainder of the meeting discussing the draft 
conclusions to date.  Substantial changes to the wording, which was 
derived from last meeting, were made during the debate.  I will forward 
a copy of the revised version as soon as I get it. [I realize that the 
previous draft wasn't forwarded. I have asked Adcom to develop a more 
efficient line of communication here.  I think the situation is 
complicated by the fact that none of us could attend the April 4 
conference call. It also doesn't help that this has somehow evolved from 
a free-ranging discussion to the emergence of concrete recommendations. 
 Nor were we alone in not understanding where things stood.  gTLD reps 
also appear to have misunderstood that the NC process has moved from 
informal discussion to drafting concrete response.].

4- The Consitcuency representatives are asked to consult with their 
consticuencies in time to forward positions to the NC mailing list 
_before_ the April 24 conference call, allowing NC reps to go directly 
to genuine discussion.

Along these lines, I have asked Adcom to formalize some process on how 
we are going to develop a consticuency position.

Harold Feld