Re: [nc-whois] RE: Teleconference notes

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Marilyn,

> Y.J., you are right, I didn't mention all who supported the concept of
> reading all submissions. You were definitely in the group!!!
>
> However, I have a question on item 3, I thought we agreed to have interim
> report at Ghana, and to try to have final report shortly thereafter, like
by
> next NC call? It may turn out to be May, after all, of course. But it
might
> be April?
>
> On the issue of publishing the final report for four weeks; do we need to
do
> that? If we publish the interim report for 4 weeks, is it customary to
allow
> then another four weeks for the final report? If so, we are really
> elongating the process. Can we leave that open and discuss it further?

The reason why I suggested 4 weeks was to give a chance to those
who may be exposed to this process late possibly during the final report
somehow and still want to provide some inputs as stakeholders. FYI,
I have witnessed such cases so many in this process and felt sorry for
them many times. Most of them are developing countries people and
non-native speakers English.

On the other hand, your point about the concern in elongating the process
may be the other part of the perspective.

Then, can we adjust to this three weeks to meet those two different
interests here?

> I think your point about the GAC is very correct, and in fact, we should
> note that although it wasn't discussed on this call,  it remains an item
to
> discuss further.

Maybe at some point, we may invite GAC representative for this issue
to sound out what their views are.

Regards,
YJ

> Best regards, Marilyn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark@myepark.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:59 PM
> To: tim@tmdenton.com; Paul Kane; Marilyn Cade; Steve Metalitz; Laurence
> Djolakian; Miriam Sapiro
> Subject: Re: Teleconference notes
>
>
> Timothy,
>
> Thank you for the notes.
> Seeking your undersatnding, I want to provide some ammendments.
> During the teleconference, it is usually for me to make comments
> properly.
>
> Page 1.
>
> (2nd)Cade:The committee was divided on this idea. A couple of
> people said that everything should be read: Younger and Sapiro.
> ....
> [Suggestion]
> I remember Marilyn didn't mention my neme when she said this,
> however please add my name into this category as scriber's note
> by request. I do share this view.
>
> Page 2
>
> YJ Park: In favour of fewer members, but with one more member
> from each constituency.
>
> [Suggestion]
> In principle, to have more people is desirable, however, if it is the
> consensus of this group, one more member from each constituency
> is agreeable.
>
> Page 3
>
> Park: This timeframe may be impractical, too ambitious.
>
> [Suggestion]
> This timeframe may be impractical based upon the other ICANN
> works such as new TLD evaluation Task Force. This is the timetable
> we can consider.
>
> "Interim draft report" is to be published mid-February for
> public comments.
>
> Interim draft report is to be presented to NC and the constituencies.
>
> "Final draft report" is to be published in May(two months) for public
> comments for 4 weeks public comments.
>
> The revised Final report is going to be presented to NC and the
> Board for their recognition.
>
> For the last, as far as I know GAC(especially EU) is very keen
> to know this issue and we may have to consider what kind of
> relations we want to build with them.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>