ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-raa-b]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V
  • From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:45:36 -0700

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
Description: Section V draft -2 (2697426-2).DOC



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy