Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tony,

Apologies to the ISPs for that. However, your email is so far past the 
deadlines we set that at this time, I would ask that any comments your 
constituency may have on Obj 5 or any other part of the charter be made at 
Council level.

The DT has done what it was tasked to do. It has forwarded a charter to the 
Council. Any further amendments to that charter can now be made at Council 
level before it is approved there.

The VI charter is scheduled for discussion at the next Council meeting on March 
10.

Stéphane


Le 1 mars 2010 à 18:39, Anthony Harris a écrit :

> 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
> 
>