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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thank you.  Can I suggest a minor change:

> One SubTeam member declined to support either proposed process, stating that 
> representatives of registrants, commercial and non-commercial users and other 
> affected parties should be full participants in the negotiation.   



s/parties/ICANN Stakeholders/


One SubTeam member declined to support either proposed process, stating that 
representatives of registrants, commercial and non-commercial users and other 
affected ICANN Stakeholders should be full participants in the negotiation.   

And of course if anyone else agrees (which I would expect from the discussion 
in the meeting) then perhaps 'one' can be upped to 'two' 'a few' 'several' ...


Thanks again

a.



On 19 May 2010, at 13:45, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> <Section V draft -2 (2697426-2).DOC>