RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Baselines
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Baselines
- From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:58:25 -0400
We need to distinguish between "acceptable" and "preferred."
It is not impossible to imagine circumstances in which people in my
constituency would "accept" 4-4-4-4-3 if the alternative was something worse.
I say that because I don't want to paint myself into a corner in the coming
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Mon 7/7/2008 9:25 AM
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Baselines
For the sake of good order could we start the call today with an
acknowledgement of what I
believe are the baselines of each party ?
(Setting aside the nom com votes for now and the changes we are proposing to
1. The BGC proposal of 4 4 4 4 would be:
- acceptable to the registries and the registrars
- NOT acceptable to the BC, IPC, ISP, NCUC and AL.
2. The Joint users proposal (amended to maintain contract parties separation)
of 3 3 6 6
- NOT acceptable to the registries and the registrars ?
- acceptable to the BC, IPC, ISP, NCUC and AL.