RE: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V
Thanks for this Avri. Let me say that I agree that this issue will be decided in the GNSO council and nothing in the report limits the options of anyone in the council deliberations. In the attached I have inserted a sentence meant to reflect your view stated below. Of course you should feel free to edit or prepare your own. If you have other ideas about how this should be reflected in our report, please advise. Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:44 PM To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V Hi, I know that I have not participated in this group, only monitored its mailing list. And while there was nothing much controversial in parts 1-4, iI find that both options list in 5 are unsatisfactory. We will be discussing this in the NCSG, but it will be my recommendation that neither of these options be supported in council but that the issue be discussed further to find a solution that includes greater inclusion in the discussion by the ICANN Stakeholders - especially the registrants but also both commercial and non commercial users. The idea that even in the majority recommendation, the observers can be excluded is unacceptable. While I was originally personally willing to accept the status of Observer for non Registrar participants, by which I mean full transparency and full participation except for decision making, after thinking further of the conditions being imposed and re-listening to some of the contribution made at yesterday's meeting, I have come to personally accept the position that full dialogue must be insisted upon. a. On 18 May 2010, at 11:39, Metalitz, Steven wrote: > SubTeam B participants, > Hi, > Following up on yesterday's call, attached please find a proposed revision of section V of the Initial Draft Report. It lays out the two options for "next steps," and includes a draft of a brief supporting statement for the option that commands Strong Support within the SubTeam. I understand that one of the registrar representatives (perhaps Statton?) will draft a statement of similar length for the alternative approach. Of course, your comments and edits on anything in this document are welcomed. Please circulated these as soon as possible, and in any case by Thursday of this week, so that we can stay on track for circulation of a "final" draft by staff no later than next Monday. Thanks. > > Steve Metalitz > > <<Section V draft (2697426).DOC>> > > > <Section V draft (2697426).DOC> Attachment:
Section V draft -2 (2697426-2).DOC
|