Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:13:31 +0200
In full agreement with Milton here. I believe keeping the way we present our
results simple is the best way to go. Mike, to address your point, SGs and
constituencies are represented at Council level and can make their feelings and
orientations felt there, when the WG's report comes before the Council. On
another recent topic, I saw you comment that SG chairs should not try to force
issues on the Council directly as they have they Council reps to voice their
opinions at Council level. I think you had a good point there and that it also
applies to this issue.
Le 16 juil. 2010 à 23:20, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
> Guys and gals: the poll results are just poll results. We just need to
> associate proposals with varying levels of support (oppose, live with, favor,
> dk). Let’s keep it simple and not try to turn them into more than they are.
> If we start breaking down votes by SG and “adviser to gTLD rep” it starts
> getting complicated aond confusing and slow. Mikey can publish the raw
> results so anyone who wants to can do fancier processing. Since we are not
> opining on the results we don’t need to go there.
> Mainly, they are useful primarily as proof that no proposal reached positive
> consensus but others had something close to negative consensus. It is also
> interesting to see how various levels of structural liberalization correspond
> to different levels of support.
> <Disclosure: I am not associated with any new TLD proposal in any way, shape
> or form. I am on the AC of PIR (.org) but take a devilish pleasure in taking
> the opposite position as PIR mgmt on these CO/VI issues.>