----- Forwarded message from HJKwon -----
Dear All, Happy New Year in lunar calendar to all, and very welcome to new members!! NIDA(.kr) is very happy we have moe members, and I hope that many more ccTLDs will join the ccNSO when ICANN board approves the bylaw changes. I have a few comments on DRAFT ICANN-ccTLD Accountability Framework, especially E and F(Termination and Effects of Termination). E-2 says the AF may be terminated when "either party will not or is unable to perform its duties under the AF", and F says that "in case of the termination of the AF, all obligations under the AF shall cease, and ICANN and ccTLD are still obligated to perform their duties in accordance with the AF to the extent this is within their powers and can be reasonably expected under the circumstances in order to maintain the stability and interoperability of the DNS" First, I am very confused with the definition of duty and obligation. Probably we might need more clear definition of those. Secondly, there is some contradiction of using the word 'duties', If you look at E and F together. E says "If your AF is terminated because you are not able to do your duties", and then F says "even if AF is terminated, you should perform your duties". I do not understand how this is possible, even though this AF additionally says the following conditions "in accordance with the AF to the extent this is within their powers and can be reasonably expected under the circumstances in order to maintain the stability and interoperability of the DNS" Best, HJ Kwon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head of International Affairs, Korea Network Information Center of National Internet Development Agency of Korea ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- To: 'Stephan Welzel/Denic' Subject: RE: [cctld-discuss] [ccnso-members] RE: Question on AccountabilityFrameworks > But seriously: Shouldn't the ccNSO (and the ccNSO Council Chair) at > least _know_ what ICANN is doing with regard to ccTLDs? I find it > worrisome that this seems to be not the case. On the contrary. Individual discussions between a ccTLD and ICANN are a matter for them and I think it would be completely inappropriate for ICANN to tell me, for example, that they are currently meeting with .de to discuss and AF. Chris Disspain > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephan Welzel/Denic > Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:38 > To: Chris Disspain > Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] [ccnso-members] RE: Question on > AccountabilityFrameworks > > Chris, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 19.01.2006 > 07:00:38: > > > > I do not know if ICANN is sending out letters to individual ccTLDs. > > Why don't you just ask Paul Twomey? scnr > > But seriously: Shouldn't the ccNSO (and the ccNSO Council Chair) at > least _know_ what ICANN is doing with regard to ccTLDs? I find it > worrisome that this seems to be not the case. > > Best, > Stephan ----- End forwarded message ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Untuk unsubscribe: kirim e-mail ke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dengan Subject: unsubscribe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
