[ncdnhc-discuss] [Adcom02] Re: One question regarding New TLD TF from NCDNHC! (fwd)
Chun Eung Hwi
ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
Fri Apr 26 05:47:10 CEST 2002
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 06:47:41 +0900 (KST)
From: Chun Eung Hwi <ehchun at PeaceNet.OR.KR>
To: M. Stuart Lynn <lynn at icann.org>
Cc: adcom02 at icann-ncc.org
Subject: [Adcom02] Re: One question regarding New TLD TF from NCDNHC!
Dear Stuart Lynn,
> What with all the discussions with Milton, James and the
> ncdnhc-discuss list, I am embarrassed to find that I had not replied
> to your note below that I had somehow missed in the flood of email I
> receive. My apologies.
Thank you for your attention!
> As I have pointed out on the ncdnhc-discuss list, there is some
> misunderstanding about the membership on the NTEPPTF Task Force.
> This is not a task force of representatives, like typical NC
> workgroups etc. It is a president's task force that is appointed by
> me following consultation with the DNSO and other ICANN constituent
> units (see the board resolution that enabled this task force at
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-04jun01.htm).
>
> When the task force was formed, I did indeed ask Phillip Sheppard for
> advice and suggested he might provide me with a list of names from
> which I could choose. In consultation with the NC, he chose to
> provide me with a list of two names from each constituency, except
> for the registries (who were not eligible for possible reasons of
> conflict), the registrars (who passed at the time) and the ISP's.
> Since the selection of names was entirely excellent, I chose to
> invite everyone on the list to become members of the Task Force,
> although there was no reason that I was compelled to do so.
I cannot understand this explanation. Do you mean that you could ignore
the full list or some of that list depending on your choice without
respecting the recommendation of Names Council as a consensus?
> YJ and Vany, then, have both participated as individuals, not as
> representatives, as have other members of the task force. Obviously,
> their familiarity with issues of interest to the NCDNHC is a plus and
> a factor in my choice, but it is their views and advice as
> individuals that are the key factors.
So far as I know it, and differently from your argument, they participated
in that TF as representatives of NCDNHC. They should always have reported
what is going on in that TF and got feedback from our constituency.
> So far, I have received no resignations from either YJ or Vany
> (notwithstanding the issue regarding YJ's possible conflict
> situation). It is their choice if they wish to resign (again, YJ's
> issue notwithstanding). Were they to do so (and I have no reason to
> urge this), I might well feel that the NTEPPTF would be deprived of
> one or more members familiar with the not-for-profit milieu
> (although I probably have as much familiarity with that milieu as
> anyone given over 25 years experience in academe, among other
> connections), and would again ask the DNSO via the chair of the NC
> for advice. Most likely, the chair would turn to the NCDNHC as part
> of forming that advice.
Because YJ and Vany participated in that TF as representatives of NCDNHC,
if there would be some problem of "conflict of interests", it would be
firstly considered in our constituency. And up to now, we have never
thought that YJ case would be regarded so. If you would take the indirect
procedure to consult with DNSO chair, it's up to you. But if DNSO chair
should recommend another non-profit person for that TF, he should
necessarily consult with us, NCDNHC. Why do you make this procedure so
complicatedly although you are arguing efficiency rather than
over-procedure in your reform proposal?
> On the other hand, the NTEPPTF hopes to complete its work by the end
> of June. Whether new members joining at this late stage would add
> anything -- or would slow down the already late work of the task
> force -- is not clear. Any member or constituent unit -- including
> the NCDNHC will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed final
> report as part of the comment period and those comments will be
> listened to. I do not believe that the NCDNHC chose to comment on the
> Interim Report which may have been a missed opportunity. So I do
> think we need to make sure that we are not putting form over
> substance, process over accomplishment.
If you have such a timeline, and if you don't invite new participants from
NCDNHC, are you trying to disfranchise our participation in that process
only leaving our opportunity for public comments? We want to make our
participants join in NTEPPTF as soon as possible.
> Another alternative would be to invite a member of the NCDNHC
> constituency to present any specific views to the Task Force at its
> next telemeeting, particulaqrly since neither YJ nor Vany has
> resigned. That, indeed, might be a more expeditious way to proceed.
> Do you have any thoughts on this idea?
Although you are saying that neither YJ nor Vany has resigned, we asked to
you whether we could change our representatives in that TF. Of course,
they have never formally resigned, but if we could change our
representatives, we would take our own procedure for that. If YJ or Vany
would hope to continue to do their work further, it would also be
considered, but still we have waited for your official answer for this
question. And your just answer is very unclear. Please clarify your
answer!
1. Whether we, NCDNHC, could change the present non-profit participants or
not in NTEPPTF if we could get their consents.
2. Regardless of the change of the present participants, can we add up
another NCDNHC participant as you seemed to propose here? Then, what's the
status of that additional participant? Can the person have the voting
rights or not?
Can you answer quickly?
Sincerely yours,
Chun Eung Hwi
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2- 2166-2216
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------
> I hope this helps you in your thinking.
>
> Warm regards -- and apologies once again for this late reply.\
>
> Stuart
>
> >Dear Dr. Stuart Lynn,
> >
> >Although in the vortex of structural reform, this question is ostensibly
> >futile, We, NCDNHC, want to know the status of New TLD Evaluation Process
> >Planning Task Force and our participants in that TF. As you know, our
> >constituency has already changed Names Council members. Therefore, we
> >think it natural to change the present participants of our constituency in
> >that TF with new persons. Then, we don't know whether we could appoint our
> >constituency participants for that TF or not and whether only Names
> >Council members are eligible for that TF or not. Could you clarify it so
> >that we could more positively join in that TF?
> >
> >I am looking forward to getting your prompt answer or advice.
> >Thank you in advance!
> >
> >
> >
> >Sincerely yours,
> >
> >Chun Eung Hwi
> >
> >Names Council member of
> >Non-Commercial Domain Name Holder's Constituency
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >Chun Eung Hwi
> >General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2- 2166-2216
> >Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667
> >Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
> >------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: lynn at icann.org
>
_______________________________________________
Adcom02 mailing list
Adcom02 at icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/adcom02
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list