ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

Jordyn:
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
discarded. 

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 >>>
Jordyn;

In reading through the draft report that Maria has prepared, I've
become 
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
it 
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
minute 
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
best 
be address, net of any compromises that have been made in the OPOC 
proposal as the result of the TF considerations.

Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Research and Innovation
Tucows Inc.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>