<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
- From: "Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:02:58 -0500
Hi Avri:
Sorry, I admit the process is somewhat confusing, but here's a quick summary:
1) The bylaws don't require, or even ask for, a vote to approve the
procedure or to approve the report or the process by which the report
is created. (Theoretically, the staff manager is just supposed to
create the report with no guidance from the task force, although
obviously we don't read that part of the PDP literally.) The final
report will be sent to the task force regardless of any voting at this
stage.
2) The bylaws DO require a vote on the position of the task force on
"the issue", which I read to mean the substantive recommendations of
the report. This is what you are being asked to vote on now.
3) The bylaws also require that "If a Supermajority Vote was not
reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by task force
members... Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons
underlying the position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the
position".
4) We previously had a straw poll on OPOC versus Special
Circumstances. The intent of this straw poll was to figure out how to
structure the report (specifically, which recommendation should be the
majority view versus the minority report). This straw poll had no
official bearing and only helped Maria structure the report.
5) Now we are having the official vote, required by the bylaws, to
determine the majority position of the task force. I am expecting
that the outcome will be the same as the straw poll, but there is no
official requirement that people vote the same way as they did in the
straw poll.
Hopefully that clarifies things,
Jordyn
On 3/7/07, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
hi,
i though i was voting against the process that produced the report
and not the conclusions in the report or the sending of the report to
the council (which i understood was going as written including the
part where it lists the votes for the 2 proposals that wee voted on).
I do not understand what it means for us to be voting on the OPOC
proposal, I thought that had already been done.
Perhaps I am the only person who is confused, which is quite
possible. I thought voting on proposals was done and now we were
voting on the contents and structure of the report and not re-taking
a vote on the recommendations. If we are voting on recommendations,
what did it mean to not allow a constituency to not change its vote?
In any case, having voted publicly, would i even be able to change my
vote if i wanted to?
a.
On 7 mar 2007, at 14.53, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:
> Hi Avri:
>
> Just to be clear, we're not voting on the report itself. We're voting
> on whether or not you support the recommendations contained therein.
> (As indicated in the previous e-mail to Marilyn, this really means
> we're voting on whether or not you support the recommendations
> contained in the OPOC proposal.)
>
> Jordyn
>
> On 3/7/07, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|