RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
- To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>, "Jaime Wagner" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ISP" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:53:09 -0800
Copying GNSO Councilors from the ISPCPC, to again ask, where do the ISPs
stand on this issue?
Regardless, relegating one position to a footnote is not the most neutral
way to present both alternatives to Council. They should be presented as
equal alternatives with a showing of who supported each one. There should
also be some explanation of what the difference is between the two.
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
I know you worked hard to get feedback from your group to us, so thanks for
As it stands, we have support for version 1 of Obj 5 (the so-called
Milton-Avri version) from a numerical majority of the groups represented on
this DT: the NCSG, the RrSG and the RySG. The IPC and the BC have indicated
they support the other version.
I am unwilling, at this stage, to open up a whole new discussion on voting
thresholds and the way to best represent this split. Also, I am keen not to
go over the deadline this group has to go back to Council with a charter
As such, I have asked Margie to draw up a final version of the charter using
version 1 of objective 5 but with a footnote listing version 2 and
explaining that the group did not reach consensus on this objective, but
that there was a numerical majority for it with support from the NCSG, RrSG
and RySG while the BC and the IPC supported the other version.
Although this does mean the DT is going back to the Council with a charter
that is not completely final, I do not see any other way of moving ahead
within our set deadlines, whilst still making sure the various views of DT
members are represented. I will apologize to the Council on behalf of the DT
about not delivering a completely finalised charter and explain what I have
just explained here.
As there will be Council discussion on this, I would encourage you to brief
your councillors so that they may highlight the reasons why your groups went
for whatever version of Obj 5 they choose when the Council comes to open up
discussion on this item.
I want to thank you all for the work we have been able to do together. I
hope you have found my participation to be helpful to the group and as
neutral as the coordinator position requires.
Le 26 févr. 2010 à 12:26, Brian Cute a écrit :
The comments received from registries in the RySG support version #1 of the
proposed Objective 5 statements.