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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Unless there is objection, I am asking the staff to make Avri's edit
below and to change "One SubTeam member" to "several SubTeam members."  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:14 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V 


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>