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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I completely agree Ross here.

Also, the idea that the Chair should have *ultimate authority* to
determine agreement is dangerously ambiguous and I request a
clarification from the Council as to what it meant by *authority to
establish.*

I also think the report should include a detailed explanation as to how
the Chair used that authority so it is perfectly clear what AGREED means
within the report.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Record of Objection
From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 25, 2007 12:39 pm
To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'gnso-whois-wg'" <gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>,  avri@xxxxxxx, 
rc-excom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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