Re: [gnso-dow123] Request for Clarification
- To: <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Request for Clarification
- From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:02:55 -0400
When Steve's proposal was first made, I pointed out that it was in
effect a "substitute motion" and should be treated as such. The way this
is handled in parliamentary procedure is for a vote to be taken on
whether to consider the proposal. If it lacks support it is tabled or
The reason for that is obvious: Anyone could delay a proceeding
interiminably by putting forward completely different proposals just as
deliberation on the main prposal was being concluded. In my opinion
there is no support for this proposal outside the IPC and therefore it
has no business in the report as something being considered by the TF.
>>> Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> 10/21/2006 6:32:49 PM >>>
In reading through the draft report that Maria has prepared, I've
concerned that the document puts far too much emphasis on the recent
proposal that the TF has initiated a discussion of, and gives it equal
"billing" with the proposal that the task force has been substantively
considering and developing for almost a year.
I do not believe that 3 weeks of consideration is enough time for this
task force to adequately consider the IPC proposal to the extent that
would need to in order for it to be given the relative weight that the
draft report has. At best the IPC report should be considered as a
minority submission to the process.
My personal view is that this last minute submission will have the
effect of polarizing this working group and completely stall out the
little progress we were making. We saw this with the earlier last
submission of the joint IPC/BC/ISPC "proposal" about the purpose of
whois. I do not wish to repeat this process again. It is
counter-productive, disingenuous and completely contrary to what this
policy development process was intended to be.
I would like to make a formal request that the last minute IPC proposal
be given a more appropriate standing in this document, either as a
minority submission of the IPC, or as part of their constituency
submission through the public comment process.
Barring this alternative, I would like to request that each other
constituency be given the same standing that has been given to the IPC
so that we may each submit our own proposal as to how the TOR might
be address, net of any compromises that have been made in the OPOC
proposal as the result of the TF considerations.
Director, Research and Innovation