Re: [nc-whois] Re: Teleconference notes

["Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>]

I'm sorry for miss the call I couldn't connect
earlier.

At 01:32 AM 11/22/2001, Paul M. Kane wrote:
> I agree with YJ's
> comments:
>
> I too am in favour of every submission being read by the
> Committee.

I'm not sure on the efectiveness of this action until we define a
specific method to read them.

I mean, if we have a thousand pages to read and no formal mechanism of
reporting what we read,  it will be like we are reading and entire
book and after that explain what the book is all about, our report will
be very diferent among us.

Seriously, I don't think we should look for demagogy, but for best
results.

> My fear is that the Committee will
> become too large that it becomes
> ineffective at drafting a report and 16 members is a large number.
> Under
> duress(!) as Chair I acknowledge the will of the majority on the call
> was
> to increase the number of representatives with access to the data.
> Thus
> the compromise was ONE member of the Committee, with ONE (or two!!)
> observers/helpers, but one needs to be careful that specific
> comments
> read by the observers were not overlooked when drafting the
> report.

In the other hand we must be careful no to overestimate a single response
or a group of them.

At this point let me ask you if we will maintain the same weight for the
diferent type of responses:

Resps   Type    weight
1048    Comm    36.3%   
1017    Indiv   35.2%   
230     ISP     8.0%
219     Other   7.6%
207     NonCom  7.2%
130     Rgstrars        4.5%
35      Gov     1.2%

For example, if we find an unanimous response on the goverment type of respondants, does it means that it represents the 1.2% ? or Should we give a different allocation of weights for the type of respondants?


Oscar

We need to work on the framework for analysis, appreciating that it is a
fluid assessment and the parameters will be subject to change.  Can we
all give it some thought over this w/end such that we can have an
exchange next week.??????????

Timeframe. We need to have timeline that optimises the time available for
public comment and review of the interim report.  Thus with the desire to
have the interim report out well in advance of the Ghana meeting - so
face to face meeting Constituency meetings in Ghana can discuss the draft
in detail -

Here's the proposed _target_ time line is:
     i) 4th Feb first cut of the interim report
    ii) 5-11th Feb internal review by the Committee of the first cut of
the interim report
    iii) 22nd Feb publish raw data and Interim report for review
    iv) 10-14th March ICANN Ghana
    v) 22Feb - 29th March close comment period (eg just over 4 weeks)
   vi) Review comments, and publish final report for NC consideration.

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.

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

Top Level Domain .MX     
Tel +52 (8)3875346
http://www.nic.mx

El contenido del presente mensaje de datos es confidencial. El Emisor no es apoderado de NIC-Mexico ni tiene facultad alguna para obligar a NIC-Mexico con la transmision y contenido del presente mensaje de datos, incluyendo el (los) archivo(s) anexo(s).