Re: [nc-whois] Re: Teleconference notes

["YJ Park" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Paul,

> YJ.  Please note.  The role of this Committee is to identify if the
> community has a common view on certain issues and to establish where more
> work is necessary. This is just Phase 1 - our remit is NOT to recommend
> policy to the Board at this stage.  In Phase 2 - we need to ensure all
> parties have the opportunity to express their views on the identified
> issues where more work is considered necessary... before working on the
> Policy recommendations.

I wish I could just agree on what you said above.
However, when I read some questions and responses, some of them
sound like already a big policy decision, though.

-   I read "a few", though. You said on the phone last night it just took 7
hours
    to read 600 responses or so, however, I have my own reality to cover all
    those responses.:-) Please, understand me. I am trying...

The remaining matter could be whether this committee is going to recognize
the forthcoming analysis as it is, which is policy itself.

Therefore, even though it may take long, we may want to let us give a
chance to consider this task more seriously. Paul, if you have another
urgent reason to hurry up, let me rethink of it. Compared to the importance
of this issue, I don't really see much awareness in most regions except
several countries and vested interested parties who want to create
Universal Whois.

Seeking your understanding.....

Regards,
YJ

> Best regards
>
> Paul
>
> YJ Park wrote:
>
> > 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
>