RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report draft 1.5

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I will not be creating an appendix that details the opinions of each
> participant on each point of this report. This is an impractical and
> unreasonable request, and it goes against the purpose of this Working Group.

I simply meant agree or don't agree, and no opinion beyond that. If this
does 
not exist, then the statements of AGREED, SUPPORT, whatever are
meaningless
since they cannot be supported. Other opinions can be included as other
views
or minority views, whatever.

Since that data (who agrees to what) needs to be collected in order to 
truthfully determine levels of support, what is the problem with
including
that data in the report?

This gets back somewhat to what Ross was concerned with. I certainly
hope
that the silence of some member is not going to be assumed to mean
support.

In my opinion, the itegrity of the report rests heavily on properly 
acertaining levels of support and documenting it.


Tim 



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report draft 1.5
From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 27, 2007 8:18 am
To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  "'gnso-whois-wg'"
<gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Dear all,

I am in the final stages of preparing the extra material for this
report.
That includes a glossary. If you have specific terms that you wish
explained, please let me know as soon as possible. 

I will not be creating an appendix that details the opinions of each
participant on each point of this report. This is an impractical and
unreasonable request, and it goes against the purpose of this Working
Group.


The purpose of the outcomes report is to aggregate the opinions of the
entire group - individual opinions have not been requested by the GNSO
Council and are inappropriate in a mixed group of constituency members
and
observers. The statements of interest have already been collected for
the
purpose of being included in the report. 

May I please request that participants of this working group use the
time
remaining to come to agreements, as Milton has suggested. Philip is out
of
office at the moment, and Milton's suggestion seems a constructive one. 

Best regards, Maria 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 1:45 PM
To: 'gnso-whois-wg'
Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report draft 1.5

1. The Chair should include a detailed explanation as to how he used his
authority to determine agreement.

2. There a few places where it says *One Registrar* this or that. I
think it
is now clear it is more than one registrar, at least three by my count.

3. There should be more definitions in the glossary - cyber-squatting
for
example.

4. An appendix should be added that details at the individual
participant
level as to who agreed to what, and a detailed reference of
participants'
stated interests so that it can be cross-referenced with this appendix.

5. I DO NOT agree with any of the recommendations or statements as
written
in the following sections:
a. Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4
b. Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
c. Section 4 in whole.
d. Section 5.2.
e. Section 6 in whole.


Tim