Hi,
I will no longer argue as the chair has spoken on the content of the
vote.
I do however, object to the process which led us here and will be
voting against the report on that basis. Specifically at the point
at which the special circumstance proposal was made, we deviated from
the previous working methods and agreements. When asked if this was
the time to submit other counter proposals that could be discussed, I
was informed that we would not be discussing alternate proposals and
there was no reason to submit alternate proposals. Once the Special
circumstances proposal was given a weight on a par with the OPOC the
circumstances changed but by then it was too late for alternate
proposals to be discussed. I believe that the process was gamed, and
while I have every respect for those who played the game and do not
deny them their right to play the game, I personally cannot sanction
that game by voting in favor of a report that has been so played.
thanks
a.
On 7 mar 2007, at 14.12, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> I don't think that the Marilyn Cade or the Avri/Milton/Wendy
> reports can be
> in the full body of the report. We only had a brief explanation for
> those
> two submissions; that didn't equate to a thorough assessment and we
> did not
> take public comments on those.
>
> As sad as that made me, of course, as the author of the MCADE
> proposal. ;-)
>
> But it seems to me that Steve's question is where we should focus.
>
> I had assumed we would be expressing support to OPOC and Special
> Circumstances.
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-
> dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:48 PM
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
>
> What exactly will we be voting on?
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Maria Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:39 PM
> To: 'Milton Mueller'; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
>
> Milton,
>
> This may seem like a non-sequitur, but in the absence of any guidance
> from
> the Bylaws, I have to go with the previously stated view of the task
> force
> about the relative time allotted to the proposals. A clear decision
> was
> made
> to treat the two sets of proposals differently,no task force member
> objected
> then or since, and I reflected that decision in the structure of the
> report.
> I agree that this is an imperfect mechanism, but I do not expect
> that a
> task
> force straw poll on this issue would yield a different result.
>
> Unless the task force is likely to collectively change its approach on
> this
> within the next hours, then I do not believe that further delay
> would be
> worthwhile.
>
> If I do not see on this list a majority of task force members who wish
> to
> change the report again, then I will instruct Glen to commence the
> Task
> Force vote tomorrow morning, 0900 CET.
>
> As the three days alotted for voting would include non-working days
> (i.e.
> Thursday, Friday and Saturday), the vote will finish on Monday, 12
> March
> at
> 1700 CET.
>
> If, on the other hand, a majority of task force members do wish to
> change
> the report, I would suggest that the task force reconvene in
> conference
> call
> to decide how the report sections should be ordered. I will be
> happy to
> facilitate such a call.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:54 PM
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
>
>>>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 3/6/2007 1:32 PM >>>
>> FYI, below is the agreed Task Force summary of the call when the
>> status
>
>> of this proposal was discussed on 18 December, 2006.
>> A distinction was made by the chair and agreed by the task force
>> about
>
>> the different status of the OPoC/Special Circumstances proposals and
>> the proposal made by Avri/Milton/Wendy and by Marilyn.
>
> Maria, this is a complete non sequitur. We agreed "not to spend
> significant
> time discussing" our proposal on a specific teleconference
> -- but we did discuss it. If the "special circumstances proposal" is
> included in the main body of the report because we discussed it, then
> the
> others have to be included too.
>
>> From a fairness and tidyness standpoint, neither should be in the
>> main
> body of the report.
>
>
>
>
>