Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] poll - Too early to ask these questions

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Berry,

I agree that the poll should focus not on the names of the advocates
(this isn't a popularity contest), and not even on the proposals,
which for a variety of reasons may have more details than necessary,
but on the fundamental policy choices.

Personally, and I don't expect anyone to agree, I see one policy
proposal common to all of the proposals, though not necessarily to all
of the working group participants, responsible for coming up with
zero, or more, policy recommendations to the Council. That common
policy is a "no" answer to your first and second question, with the
caveat that some, perhaps all, advocates of "single-registrant" have
expressed a willingness to end any policy if policy for some
"single-registrant" type is not developed inseparably from policy
development for the existing types of applications.

>From that common policy, there are those which propose some form of
conditional exception from Recommendation 19, and those which propose
unconditional exception from Recommendation 19.

The development of a decision tree, with some vague weighting by
participant interest in policy development along some portions of a
decision tree, rather than a which complete proposal do you like, sort
of like, not like (no opinion is an important response, as is don't
care) set of choices, would, in my opinion, be more useful.

While nominally affiliation or identification of conflict of interest
might help understand any participant association with broad choices
in a decision tree, SOIs have already been submitted by all of the
working group participants. Once should be sufficient, in the OSC we
made that determination for the Council's SOI disclosure, with the
exception that if a Councilor had a change of interest subsequent to
the SOI filing that was relevant to the issue before the Council, that
the Councilor has the affirmative duty to disclose that previously
nonexistent, and therefore undisclosed conflict of interest.

Eric