I don't understand why this is a problem (except for the general trend of not being able to find NCUC members for the many working groups). Just a sub-group report. Is the report bad? NCUC generally seems to like the release of names, at whatever level. If no technical reasons not to release (<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03164.html>?), then our interest is perhaps in how the names are released. We should support the general principle of more names. Aftermarket's booming again. Suggest auction with a reserve of USD 50 Million with money generated added to a global trust for ICT development, with a focus on Internet Governance and ICT aspects of millennium development goals (i.e. the IGF and GAID). Start with T O Y ? Adam >Danny, > >Thanks for alerting me on this. I must say, though, that I can't >afford to be concerned every time NCUC lack volunteers to participate >in a WG or sub-group (I would've been multi-sick and lost half of my >weight by now.) Not even when the result is that a sub-group is >filled of BC members that have "aggressively promoted" a specific >outcome. When the report will be released, NCUC can make their view >known, if any. Better yet, they could massively volunteer to be part >of the WGs and Sub-groups in order to participate in shaping the >outcome. (I know you, Danny, have given your share of time and energy >in those WGs.) > >Further, when the report of the whole WG comes out at the council >level, NCUC have three reps there. If we all attend the Council >conference calls, no matter our geographical locations (that are not >so much more distributed than those of the other constituencies' >reps,) then we could make the NCUC's voice heard (note: proxies are >no longer accepted for those not present on the calls.) But I'd >advise that we be concerned with getting our language in at the >drafting phase of the recommendations. The late draftings are painful >for everyone, and at the end we are reduced to voting against, but >then more often on the minority side than on the majority one. > >And if you really want to know my mind while I'm at it, I'm more >concerned that BC (and any other constituency, for that matter,) make >sure they open up to businesses (or relevant constituents) from East >Europ, Asia and Africa when these knock at the door. And if those >diverse new comers want to step in and speak for themselves and their >interests, great! Conversely, if they just want to sit in and listen >and watch the others populate the WGs, etc. and shape the decisions, >it's also fine by me; maybe they will be learning something out of >it. > >Last, which should have been first, please join me to welcome >Victoria McEvedy to our world, and wish her a lot of perseverance. >Victoria, please feel free to ask any question, privately (to any one >of us) or on this list as you see fit, about the WG processes that I >know you've already joined or the GNSO constituencies, including this >one. > >Best regards, > >Mawaki > > >--- Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Mawaki, >> >> I have noted that the Sub Group on Single and Dual >> Character Domains within the Reserved Names Working >> Group has released a recommendation that >> single-letters at the second level should be released. >> >> No matter what your view on this issue, you should be >> concerned about the composition of this Sub Group: >> >> Neil Blair >> Mike Rodenbaugh >> Alistair Dixon >> Marilyn Cade >> >> All of these members hail from the Business >> Constituency (that has aggressively promoted the >> release of single-letters). >> >> I would suggest monitoring the output of this group >> very closely. >> >> Best regards, >> Danny >> >> >> >> >____________________________________________________________________________________ >> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time >> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. >> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news >>