RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Record of Objection

["Scoville, Adam" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx>]

Could you provide more detail on how you propose to "actually gauge what
level of support exists for each of the recommendations that have come
forward from the WG?"

 

I agree that there might be other ways, but it seems that the chair's
method is one way of doing just that: 

-        we start with the chair making a rough assessment of how to
label various points, based on list and call discussion

-        and then there are ample opportunities (both on-list and
on-call) for anyone to say, for instance, "I disagree with 2.3" or "I
think there was only "agreement" on 1 if you add that 'certain'
registrants are engaged in bad faith," and for the assessment to be
revised.

 

It seems like your issue is with the subjectivity (I would disagree that
Philip's assessments have been arbitrary) of the chair assessing the
level of support, more than the method of soliciting objections. If
that's the case, it's worth referring to the Working Group's Charter
from the GNSO Council: "Working with the group, the Chair will have the
authority to establish where agreement/support/alternative views exist."

 

Best,

Adam

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:39 AM
To: Maria Farrell
Cc: 'gnso-whois-wg';  
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Record of Objection

 

Maria Farrell wrote:

> Ross,

> 

> Would you mind explaining in more detail your objection to the process
of

> going through each 'agreed' to see if it is indeed an 'agreed'? I am
having

> difficulty understanding the comparison with 'guilt until innocence is

> proven' and I expect others are too. 

 

Quite simply, we are being asked to demonstrate where support for a 

proposition doesn't exist. The stated characterization of support was, 

from what I can tell, an arbitrary determination made by our chair and 

we have now been tasked with demonstrating where these levels of support


don't exist. The onus has been inappropriately reversed!

 

> As we have just begun this final whittling process and have another
couple

> of weeks of it to go before the report will be concluded, what is your

> suggestion for a working method you can agree with?

 

That we actually gauge what level of support exists for each of the 

recommendations that have come forward from the WG, and not just those 

that were chosen by the drafters of this document. Only when we have 

seen a reasonable level of support for a recommendation from a 

reasonable cross section of stakeholders should we be claiming that 

there is agreement for a recommendation.

 

It is not surprising that we can find 10 IP lawyers who agree with 

Steve's propositions. Instead, we should be looking for propositions 

that 10 lawyers can agree with 10 registrars (amongst others) on - that 

would meet a *real* test for consensus. What we've got now, in my 

opinion, doesn't and can't come close to meeting any reasonable test of 

consensus.

 

-- 

Regards,

 

Ross Rader

Director, Retail Services

Tucows Inc.

 

http://www.domaindirect.com

t. 416.538.5492