[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: One question regarding New TLD TF from NCDNHC! (fwd)
Chun Eung Hwi
ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
Fri Apr 26 22:31:08 CEST 2002
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:15:15 -0700
From: M. Stuart Lynn <lynn at icann.org>
To: Chun Eung Hwi <ehchun at peacenet.or.kr>
Cc: adcom02 at icann-ncc.org
Subject: Re: One question regarding New TLD TF from NCDNHC!
At 12:37 PM +0900 4/26/02, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>Dear Stuart Lynn,
>
>
>> YJ has now resigned from NTEPPTF. YJ has been a constructive and
>> thoughtful member of the TF and I am sure the entire TF will miss her
>> participation. But I respect her decision.
>
>No! I have never heard that she would resign off from NTEPPTF. What I
>heard from her is that if NCDNHC wants to change their representatives in
>that TF, she will resign off. But if that TF would not allow to change
>NCDNHC people, she is scaring that we have no ncdnhc person in that TF.
>What it means is obviously that if as you argue it, those participants are
>not representatives of each constituency but individuals, she would keep
>her seat so that we may not lose ncdnhc people in that TF. Therefore, so
>far as I know it, your understanding is definitely wrong.
*****I have a note from YJ that I read as a resignation. I have sent
her a note asking to her clarify unequivocally whether or not this is
the case.
>
>
>> I have also written to Vany to enquire as to her status, but have not
>> heard back from her. Perhaps she is no longer responding to the email
>> address I have for her (vany_martinez at yahoo.com). If you know of a
>> better contact address, I would appreciate it if you could forward it
>> to me. I do not know what Vany wishes to do. You and your colleagues
>> are suggesting that she is no longer active in ICANN matters, and if
>> so, perhaps she, too, intends to resign from the TF. If that is the
>> case, however, I need to hear that from her.
>
>Here is her alternative email addresses ; vany at sdnp.org.pa, ceo at vany.org
****Thank you.
>
>
>> Let us assume for a moment that Vany also resigns (I am in no way
>> suggesting that she do so -- that is her choice). As Chair of the
>> Task Force, I would then feel that we would be missing valuable
>> input, namely a member of the Task Force who is familiar with issues
>> that may be of concern to the NCDNHC. This is very different from a
>> representative of the NCDNHC. The Task Force is not composed of
>> representatives, but of individuals selected by me. This point is
>> discussed following this note.
>>
>> In which case, I would the inform the Chair of the Names Council,
>> that I feel the TF would be strengthened by the addition of someone
>> familiar with issues of concern to the non-commercial constituency.
>> As required by the Board resolution (see below) that enabled this TF
>> requiring me to appoint members with the advice of the Names Council
>> and other ICANN constituent units and individuals, I would ask the
>> NC Chair for the NC's advice on who would be a good person to fill
>> such a role. Presumably, the NC or it s chair would consult with the
>> NCDNHC and provide me with one or more suggested individuals. This
>> time, however, I would only make it clear that I only intend to
> > appoint one individual; if more names were provided, I would choose
> > between or among them. I would appoint that person only after having
> > ascertained that s/he was willing to serve and to abide by the
> > groundrules of TF operation that have been agreed upon by the TF.
>
>
>O.K. if Vany resign off, we would recommend the other person to Philip. If
>not, she would keep her seat in that TF.
******As I said in my note, I will be seeking the NC advice if both
Vany and YJ have resigned.
>
>
>
>> I would not accept any suggestions of individuals who are
>> characterized as being representatives of a constituency.
>
>Although your explanation sounds very strange and awkward, we don't want
>to debate this topic more because we don't want to delay any longer our
>possible input on the table given the extremely limited time.
*******Good. And I am not prepared to devote more time to this topic
either other than carrying through what I stated. There is a point
that will come very soon when I expect all of us will stop spending
time debating this subject. I would rather concentrate on the work of
the NTEPPTF itself rather than on these process debates. I am sure
you feel the same way. In the end, if the NCDNHC is not comfortable
with the result of our discussions, then it can provide constituency
comment on the final report itself before the report is submitted to
the Board. I would expect any comments on the substance of the report
will be carefully listened to.
Stuart
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>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
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>>
>> With regards
>> Stuart
>>
>> Some background:
>>
>> Let me just make it quite clear. When the President of ICANN chooses
>> to put together a President's Task Force, s/he is in general free to
> > invite whomever s/he chooses to be members of that Task Force. There
>> is nothing in the ICANN Bylaws or any vote of the Board that in
>> general requires otherwise. The vote of the Board requesting me to
>> establish this particular Task Force, however, stated that the TF
>> should consist "of members selected with the advice of the Names and
>> Protocol Councils and the Chairs of the IETF, IAB, and ICANN DNS Root
>> Server System Advisory Committee". I followed the directive of the
>> Board in establishing the membership of this Task Force. Please note
>> that the resolution nowhere required me to seek "representatives"
>> from each DNSO constituency, or, indeed, that there be
>> representatives at all.
>>
>> Advice is advice. It is not binding. I am not bound by advice, but I
>> do treat it very seriously. The NC well recognized that the original
>> list of names that it submitted was a list of nominations from which
>> I was free to choose. The list was composed of nominations, not
>> representatives. This was well understood in the dialog that
>> occurred. The final list of nominations contained 2 names that the NC
>> associated with the BC, 1 with the IPC, 2 with the NCDNHC, 1 with the
>> ccTLD, and non with Registries, Registrars, or the ISPC. Some from
>> the Registrars Constituency much later enquired whether it would be
>> possible to appoint someone who understood their issues and concerns,
>> but then noted that Roberto Laorden was already a member of the TF.
>> Roberto, who had been appointed following advice received by me from
>> the PSO -- is in fact a registrar. They then dropped their request.
>>
>> As stated, although not bound by it, I take the advice of the DNSO
>> very seriously. The list of nominations was a very good list in its
>> entirety, regardless of the fact that it did not contain names
>> associated with each DNSO constituency, or that it contained two
>> names associated by the NC with each of two constituencies. Rather
>> than select from the list, I decided to accept the entire list of
>> nominations, although I was not bound to do so in any way. I am very
>> pleased with that decision.
>>
>> The individuals who serve on the task force serve as individuals, not
>> as representatives. Having said that, obviously I want to have
>> members who bring a rich diversity of backgrounds and experiences to
>> the TF, and well understand that members' views are often affected by
>> their other ICANN associations. I also want members who can reflect
>> what they felt would be some of the perspectives of the
>> constituencies who may have advanced their nominations in the first
>> place. It is important for the TF to understand those perspectives.
>> How they choose to obtain those perspectives is up to each member, of
>> course, provided they work within the groundrules that are set by the
>> TF as a whole. On the other hand, when they give advice and vote on
>> the TF, they are expected to take an overall ICANN perspective.
>>
>> I hope this background is useful to you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 6:47 AM +0900 4/25/02, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>> >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
>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __________________
>> 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
>>
--
__________________
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
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list