Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stephane,

I am sorry but actually the ISPCP is represented on the DT (by myself).

I was unable to participate actively last week due to out-of-office
commitments, but we are discussing the issue of Objective 5
in our Constituency and will comment asap.

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
  To: Jeff Eckhaus 
  Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5


  I agree with Jeff.


  Mike, you have asked where the ISPC stood on this before, and I didn't 
understand why then. I still don't now. They do not have a rep on this DT, and 
all we are concerned with here is people on the DT. The ISPC will have an 
opportunity to comment, just like all the other GNSO groups, when this goes to 
Council.


  I also do not understand your arguments for equal representation of both 
objectives. A majority of those groups represented on this DT have come out in 
favour of version 1. As there is no consensus, I did not consider it fair to 
present that as the only option to the Council. But I would also consider it 
unfair to present both options as equals. That is clearly not the opinion the 
DT has expressed.


  Stéphane


  Le 26 févr. 2010 à 18:17, Jeff Eckhaus a écrit :


    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

    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