RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Where are the ISPs on this issue?

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:52 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5


Well actually that's an interesting point, which Jeff has also made directly
to me.

I was going about this using the simplest system I could think of, which was
a one member/one vote system for DT members.

This would mean we currently have deadlock until Brian gives us the
registry's preference (can we get that soon Brian please?).

But there is also a case for using the same thresholds as those used by the
GNSO Council.

At this stage, I think the fairest way is either for the DT as a whole to
determine which system it wants to apply or for us to go back to the Council
and explain that the DT was unable to reach consensus on Obj 5 and that the
Council should determine which version goes into the charter. I for one am
not in favour of this second alternative, as I think it makes us look unable
to reach a final determination. But I do not want to argue this forever.

There is another solution: the DT could decide that I, as coordinator, am
allowed to speak my mind and vote on this as an independent member of the
team :)

Stéphane

Le 25 févr. 2010 à 18:43, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> That's at the Council level, not the DT level. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:42 PM
> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Avri Doria
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
> 
> 
> Right, my understanding is that if one House obtains full support and
another House has divided support (NCSG on one side, CSG on the other) that
we still have the required supermajority. If both Houses are divided,
however, then we need to find compromise language. 
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All
Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van 
>> Gelder
>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:32 AM
>> To: Avri Doria
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, we seem to have a deadlock situation right now with the NCSG and 
>> the RrSG supporting the Milton/Avri Obj 5 and the BC and the IPC 
>> supporting the Kristina Obj 5.
>> 
>> This could be resolved by the RySG coming out in support of one 
>> version or the other, but it's now past deadline and there hasn't been 
>> a reaction from the registries.
>> 
>> Brian, could you let us know which version the registries support 
>> please?
>> 
>> I would then suggest we move ahead as we had planned to: the majority 
>> takes it. I would also suggest, as this is pretty evenly split up, 
>> that a not be included in the charter explaining which version of obj 
>> 5 was supported by whom. This could then be sent back to Council 
>> as-is, and for them to make a final determination.
>> 
>> Margie, were you able to act on Avri's earlier proposal to bring the 
>> proposed agenda inline with recent developments? Do you have a 
>> definitive version of the charter that I can take back to the Council?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 25 févr. 2010 à 15:48, Avri Doria a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> so how do we resolve this split in the consensus?
>>> 
>>> does the council vote on the version of Objective 5 they like best?
>>> or does the charter linger in the DT until we reach a consensus?
>>> 
>>> if the later, who can suggest a compromise wording?
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>