RE: [gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency
- To: <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency
- From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:21:17 -0500
>>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 03/05/07 12:30 PM >>>
>My understanding of our process is that task force members can
>request changes until the report is finalised.
The problem is that the registry constituency is not
requesting"finalizing" changes in the report, they are attempting to
disavow their own position, while at the same time leaving in place an
official constituency statement that completely contradicts what they
are saying now.
This introduces a disequlibrium in the whole game that could opens us up
to hours of more negotiations and renegotiations. I don't think it is
fair or productive for ICANN to attempt to accommodate these kinds of
maneuvers. As Tim said, if the RyC wants to change, they can change
their vote on the Council, they can announce the reasons for it then,
and they can issue a report explaining it if they want to. What they
should not be allowed to do is renegotiate the entire report based on a
disruptive change in their position when none of us has a proper change
to respond to their proposed changes.
At the very least, Maria, I would allow you to add a sentence such as
"After the final TF meeting, the Registry constituency announced that
while prefers the Opoc solution to the Special Circumstances proposal it
belives that the OPoC solution does not adequately address the question
of access to unpublished data."
That is a factual statement -- it eliminates all the propaganda that
Simon sought to insert into the executive summary and accurately
summarizes the new RyC position.
I will completely and uncompromisingly oppose ANY other change to the
report, I hope Tim and others will back me on that.