Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Release-candidate draft is out on the wiki

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

looks like we've got a few ways to go here...

-- the drafting-group could develop a replacement that works better for all

-- the offending list could get chopped off the draft

-- we could amplify the "this is a draft" header to make it clear that this one 
is pretty far from agreement

what say you drafting-group folks.  how about one more try at getting this one 
a bit closer to agreement.

thanks,

mikey


On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> 
> I see that the kitchen sink full of specific compliance measures, which were 
> never discussed, much less agreed to, and of which many only make sense in 
> certain models, are back in the compliance draft.   They certainly cannot be 
> qualified as principles that I agree with -- and others have seconded this.  
> 
> The compliance draft states:  "Where there seems to be agreement is in the 
> notion that an effect Compliance function is needed -- to increase confidence 
> that harmful behavior will be quickly identified and stopped, and to provide 
> better information upon which to base policy in the future."  I with agree to 
> this, but in a general sense only.  This sentence, followed by the kitchen 
> sink list, suggest that there "seems to be agreement" on the kitchen sink.   
> There isn't.  That is a mischaracterization. 
> 
> The drafter of this list first ignored my timely comment, which was seconded 
> by Milton Mueller, and subsequently suggested that my amendments, which I 
> provided in a red-lined Word doc, were too late and without support.  Neither 
> of these implications are true, and I strongly object to my entirely 
> reasonable points being ignored.
> 
> Apart from the fact that many of these items don't make any logical sense 
> from the perspective of ICANN enforcement, a drafter for a group has an 
> obligation to be neutral and listen to others, air objections, and try to 
> find consensus.   This happened in the exceptions drafting group, where my 
> suggestions were overruled by the others.  That was fair, and I acceded to 
> their correct observations that my suggestions did not have consensus either 
> in the wider group or within our drafting subgroup.  
> 
> In the compliance group, however, things have proceeded rather differently.  
> Even when I proposed alternate language, and others agreed with me, we were 
> ignored.  
> 
> If the itemized list of compliance measures stay in there, I will have to 
> forcefully dissent.  These items are a wish-list of the drafter, and not the 
> result of group input.  
> 
> Antony
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> the latest (and hopefully final) version of the Initial Report is out on the 
>> wiki.  here's the link;
>> 
>>      
>> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots
>> 
>> i think we've achieved reasonable balance -- a report that everybody 
>> dislikes about equally.  :-)
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone        651-647-6109  
>> fax                  866-280-2356  
>> web  http://www.haven2.com
>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>> Google, etc.)
>> 
>> 
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)