were read to the assembled group.Messages marked with were read to the assembled group.
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) comments to the list (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 5:09:13 PM, #633) It would be great if some of the comments to the lists - ga and working group are read during this meeting - so we know that some one is atleast reading them. Else most of us have doubts if anyone in position of power even looks at them |
|
Mikki Barry Ken Stubbs (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 5:07:10 PM, #632) I've known Hubris. Ken Stubbs is NO Hubris! :-) |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) yet more working groups? (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 4:41:51 PM, #631) We are already divided into such small groups that it is almost impossible to get anything done. We have 5 working groups now, 7 constituencies, numerous committees, why not let the registrars deal with implementation of the UDRP since they are the ones who will have to be dealing with the general logistics of implementation of the UDRP and all other implementation issues that will effect their businesses? |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) improper procedure (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 4:26:05 PM, #630) There is a motion on the floor from the last meeting regarding putting all working groups under the GA. It is improper to then vote on the name counsel opening yet another working group up. |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno (individual capacity)) (WG Reports, 11/2/99 4:07:12 PM, #629) Participation of all constituencies, including those who are petitioning the Board. For the record I would like to make know that I was part of the WG-E mailing list. That I posted a request to have the WG include in its report information about the efforts of the IDNO constituency to be part of the DNSO and information about its numbers, website and outreach efforts. These postings , although perfectly civilly phrased, were blackholed without any comment, either private or public. After this I have not received any postings from the WG-E mailing list. I have drawn the conclusion that I have been summarily ejected. I would appreciate an explanation from Kilnam Chon. |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) Ken Stubbs: Cutting remote participation (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 3:30:46 PM, #628) If you refuse to budget for remote participation for those who cannot afford your expenive semi-annual junkets to remote locations in the name of "outreach", you should be prepared to address this breach of the MoU. The remote participation (webcast, comment submissions, chat, etc.) are the only means those of us who cannot aford the time or expense to travel to your remote locales have to participate. If you take this away from us, you will have ended any facade of openness this process has. You should also discontinue the mailing lists and websites for similar reasons. Because thousands of people are not currently using the webcast is no argument for disbanding them; there aren't that many participants in ICANN, period. Your statements show both shortsightedness and hubris. |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO(speaking in Individual capacity)) These interests need to be represented on the NC.
The GA represents a multitude of different stakeholder interests. These
need to be reflected in the composition of the NC. |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) The role of the GA (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 3:00:30 PM, #626) There's a lot of discussion about what the NC should do about the GA, its role, its chair, etc. These suggestions come in the same breath as recommendations that the GA take on a larger role, with more power. I fail to see how the NC can insist on controlling and running the GA while complaining that the ICANN Board is doing exactly the same thing to them, without at least acknowledging the irony inherent in these actions. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 2:57:48 PM, #625) Milton's suggestion of changing the GA to IDNO is a laudable recognition of the role of individuals, but IDNO currently has a petition for reconsideration before the Board. The NC might wish to express Milton's sentiments in terms of support for the notion of a greater role for individuals -- without intervening in a Board matter currently underway. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 2:29:55 PM, #623) NC frustration with ICANN Board decisions. That Ms. Y.J. Park compared the current frustration of the Names Council with the frustration expressed by the General Assembly, testifies to the fact that these structures have been implemented in a top -down fashion. Ratification of these structures from the bottom up, or failing that, re-structuring from the bottom up is the only way to address the frustration. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 2:08:12 PM, #622) Karl Auerbach, a member of the GA, made a motion that was not submitted to a vote in the last session. Now, here's the Names Council claiming its wishes are being ignored by the Board in the matter of NSI. These are serious departures from 'bottom-up' decision-making. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) extra time to discuss NSI agreement (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 2:07:18 PM, #621) There should be no more time given. No extra time was given for important issues like the UDRP, or other important policy decisions. The DNSO has had plenty of time to review this, more time to review it in fact than any other substantive issue. It should be dealt with immediately. Note that the "nsi problem" would be greatly reduced if another 20+ gTLDs were added to the root. |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) NC disenfranchisement (Agenda Discussion, 11/2/99 1:46:49 PM, #620) I find it amusing that the NC is now chafing under the same feelings of disenfranchisement and neglect that the General Assembly and the individual stakeholders have been trying to address with respect to the NC all this time. |
All times are PST (GMT -8)
This file is automatically generated.