Re: [gnso-raa-b] Comments on Section V and Process B Statement of Support

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

=> and the new WG guidelines (current DRAFT includes this) will define
classifications for use ;-)  and Avri "knows" what they are  ;-)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 21 May 2010 10:35, Metalitz, Steven <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Holly may be right in English but Avri is my authority on Icannese!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thu May 20 16:35:49 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Comments on Section V and  Process B Statement of
> Support
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In defense of Steve's use of language, in ICANN there varieties of
> 'consensus'.
>
> the top three are:
>
> - full or unanimous consensus - everybody but everybody
>
> - rough or near consensus, where most all agree except for perhaps one or
> two and their viewpoint has been fully expressed, understood and documented.
>
> - consensus policy where a supermajority defined as some percentage of each
> house of the GNSO Council agrees in a vote.
>
> So, when using the word consensus in the GNSO at least, it has to be
> qualified for people to know which meaning is meant.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 20 May 2010, at 19:07, Holly Raiche wrote:
>
> > HI Steve
> >
> > I think this is a reasonable summary of where the team got to.  My one
> comment - sheer pedantry - is in the second paragraph.  Either there is
> consensus - which implies general but not necessarily total agreement - or
> you have unanimous agreement - which is everyone.  You can't have unanimous
> consensus.  so please just drop the word consensus
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Holly
> > On 21/05/2010, at 4:35 AM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for these edits, Statton. The attached accepts virtually all of
> them.  The exceptions are when you have either edited the text of Proposed
> Process A, or retorted directly to the supporting statement (e.g., in the
> reference to "active" participation).  Obviously the supporters of Process A
> could do the same and critique what is in your supporting statement, but
> rather than play tit for tat I suggest that the supporting statements
> respond to the Proposed Process lists only.  (For the same reason, I think
> your footnote is not appropriate with regard to "active" participation, but
> I leave it up to you and your colleagues whether or not to retain it.)
> >>
> >> I have also made the changes I suggested a few minutes ago to the
> sentence concerning the position of Avri and others.   I also changed the
> last sentence of the 2d paragraph because both proposed processes call for
> public comment.
> >>
> >> I believe we are just about done in terms of our editing work and look
> forward to receiving the staff's final version no later than Monday. Of
> course if I am mistaken in my belief I am sure someone will correct me!
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Hammock, Statton
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:58 PM
> >> To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Comments on Section V and Process B Statement of
> Support
> >>
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Attached is a redline showing recommended changes to your initial draft
> of Section V of the RAA Initial Draft Report (which also incorporates Avri’s
> edit from today).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This version also includes a draft Statement of Support for Proposed
> Process B.   Also, I’d like to follow-up Tim’s request from yesterday to add
> SubTeam B’s attendance record to Annex C.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Questions or comments from the SubTeam are welcome but please also be
> sure to copy Tim and Michele as I will be out of the office on Thursday and
> Friday and may be unable to respond to comments as quickly as I would like.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Statton
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Statton Hammock
> >>  Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs
> >>
> >> <image001.gif>
> >>
> >> P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 www.networksolutions.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <image001.gif><RAA Report Draft - Section V_ SH changes mostly accepted
> (RAA Report Draft - Section V_ Clean with SH changes).DOC>
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Holly Raiche
> > Executive Director,
> > Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
> > ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Mob: 0412 688 544
> > Ph: (02) 9436 2149
> >
> > The Internet is For Everyone
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>