[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: NTEPPTF

[YJ Park]

Responding to several questions made either during Bucharest public 
forum by Jamie or private exchanges....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:51 PM
Subject: NTEPPTF


> YJ,
> 
> I'm noticing that you are listed in the NTEPPTF report as a member 
> of the task force.  Did you actually participate in the development 
> of the report?  

Yes or No.

> I seem to recall that I've been reading about some problems you had 
> with Stuart about that TF.

Some problems are in some sense hammered out after a series of 
exchanges among several NCDNHC folks and the Chair of TF in the
level of Task Force. The details of the debate intentionally are omitted.

However, the issues were raised during the debates can be valuable for
the GA or any other parties who are interested in ICANN reform to
consider and propose other potential alternatives.

1st Issue: "representative" issue.

The NC/DNSO TF is in principle composed of the representatives of 
the constituencies. On the other hand, the President's TF/ICANN is in 
principle composed of the people who are initially nominated by the 
NC/DNSO or other SOs and approved by the CEO. TF members 
should not represent anybody but themselves.

Can we aknowledge and accept this current practice is incorporated
into ICANN reform process or do we want changes? It sounds we may 
not have enough counterbalances in managing this President's Task Force. 

2nd issue: "conflicts of interests" issues.

If ICANN Board of Directors recuse themselves with explicit "conflicts 
of interests" facing the bids or other decisions which they are related with, 
they can attend and question they think appropriate, which is common 
practice.

However, it is still unclear what kind of the conflicts of interests were
involved with in Accra new gTLD evaluation TF meeting wrt .ORG 
divestiture.

The current accumulated practice respected by ICANN community 
cannot provide clear understanding or clrification about "conflicts of 
interests" as has been demanded by the community. More consistent
approach should be set up and respected by the community.

Regards,
YJ