Dear all,
Here is the Final Task Force Report. It includes the following changes
- Jordyn's language changes as described below
- Updated succes metric regarding privacy
- Re-positioning of the Special Circumstances Proposal from an annex to
Section 5 of the report following the Task Force Recommendation
- Correction to numbering in section 11.
Not wishing to prejudice discussions on this list about how you wish to
proceed after the changes requested by the Registry Constituency, I will
explain the reasoning behind the ordering change of the Special
Circumstances Proposal.
I consulted with the General Counsel's office on where a minority report
should be positioned within a task force report. There is no supermajority
support for either of the main proposals considered by the Task Force. If a
supermajority vote on the issue is not achieved by the Task Force, the
Bylaws call for the Task Force Report to include "a clear statement of all
positions espoused by task force members, ... Analysis of the issue would
effect each constituency...analysis of the period of time that would likely
be necessary to implement the policy." The Bylaws are silent on how any
minority reports should be incorporated into the Task Force Report.
Given this, I checked for precedents to see if there is an existing
practice.
On precedents, there were three previous reports which contain minority
reports:
- Whois Task Force Three, included the minority report in the body of the
report, and did include other annexes.
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois-tf3-preliminary.html)
- A non-PDP report from 2002 on the re-assignment of .com
(http://www.icann.org/accra/org-topic.htm) This puts the minority report in
the body of the report, and didn't have any annexes.
- Final Report of the Transfers Task Force,
http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm#MinorityReports,
which put the minority report in the body of the report, and did include
annexes.
- The draft PDP06 report incorporates the elements of a minority report into
the relevant sections of that report.
The precedents indicate that there is no practice of putting minority
reports into annexes. I have therefore put the Special Circumstances
Proposal into the body of the Task Force Report. In the executive summary, I
have referenced this proposal in the manner Milton suggested last week, i.e.
stating its support and simply referring readers to its location in the
report.
The report is attached in a clean version. I include a track changes version
of the Executive Summary so you can see the changes to it (Jordyn's changes
are in green, they comprise about 2 sentences.).
All the best, Maria
-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 5:18 PM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx; simon@xxxxxxxxxxx;
NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency
Hi all:
I think that Maria and I have worked out some language that factually
reflects the situation at hand, and is actually fairly similar to Milton's
suggestion.
I'm hoping we'll be able to get the final draft out to everyone today, and
hopefully begin voting tomorrow.
Jordyn
On 3/6/07, Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Maria:
>
> >>> "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
> this:
>
> "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.
>
>
>
>