RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to disagree on this path of asking the ISPC and possibly others where 
they stand.

Unless I have completely missed their comments and participation, to go ask 
groups to vote on a Charter where they were not involved does not seem like the 
proper next steps in this process. That is besides the point that they have 
missed the deadline for their vote and participation.

As for the footnote versus the equal alternatives, that is the reason we had a 
vote and went through this process. They are not equal alternatives and do not 
think they should be presented as such.


Jeff



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 8:53 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Jaime Wagner; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ISP
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

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.

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

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
To: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

Thanks Brian,

I know you worked hard to get feedback from your group to us, so thanks for 
those efforts.

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 proposal 
(today).

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.

Stéphane
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.

Regards,
Brian