[ncdnhc-discuss] [Adcom02] Re: One question regarding New TLD TF from NCDNHC! (fwd)

Chun Eung Hwi ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
Fri Apr 26 05:47:51 CEST 2002


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:35:49 -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: [Adcom02] Re: One question regarding New TLD TF from NCDNHC!

Dear Chun Eung Hwi:

Let me try and shortcut this situation.

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.

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are suggesting that she is no longer active in ICANN matters, and if 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.

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.

I would not accept any suggestions of individuals who are 
characterized as being representatives of a constituency.

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
_______________________________________________
Adcom02 mailing list
Adcom02 at icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/adcom02




More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list