<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Release-candidate draft is out on the wiki
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cute" <briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Release-candidate draft is out on the wiki
- From: "Brian Cute" <bcute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:59:33 +0000
Mikey,
I would be the first to recognize that the drafting dynamic was subject to
serious time constraints and not perfect. I don't think a drafting group
effort at this late hour is the way to go. I think given Antony's concerns
that you drafting an amplification of "this is just a draft" would be a good
way to proceed.
Regards,
Brian
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:53:20
To: Antony Van Couvering<avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cute<briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Release-candidate draft is out
on the wiki
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.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|