Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Personally I think that if there are 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 people  
with alternate views, it may be possible to argue that something  
still has broad support in a group of 30-60 (what is the number of  
active participants, those who participate in calls and on the  
list?).  Once we get to the point that something has 4 - 6 or more  
people with alternative views then it seems to me that it starts to  
be more difficult to argue that we have broad support in the WG.   
This becomes even more apparent when those with alternate views are  
from several different constituencies, advisory bodies etc, and have  
differing alternate views.

My individual view is that this is something we should work on  
capturing in the next meeting.  While, in the best of all possible  
worlds, it might be possible to achieve recommendations with broader  
support though more communication, at this point i think we are best  
off making sure that we have a report from the working group that  
people feel accurately represents the current viewpoints of the  
members of the working group.  It is time to turn this back to the  
council, so lets make sure it is an accurate picture.

thanks

a.

On 6 aug 2007, at 16.52, Thomas Keller wrote:

> It seems to me that the term "agreed" is very flexible and does not  
> reflect
> the dissent on many of the issues correctly. This should be changed
> towards a more balanced desciption of the situation.
>
> Best,
>
> tom
>
> Am 02.08.2007 schrieb Philip Sheppard:
> > Please find attached the outcomes report version 1.6.
> >
> > This I hope captures the last two weeks of discussion on list and  
> > on our two calls.
> > Changes compared to v1.5 are:
> > - new and clarified text;
> > - revised levels of support;
> > - revised section 7 (with text transferred from section 2);
> > - new section 8 (further studies).
> > (I considered issuing a red-line tracked version but there have  
> > been too many changes to
> > make this a useful tool.)
> >
> > I would like to call a halt to changes of substance on the issues:  
> > these we have well
> > covered.
> > I would like to invite any comments where you feel any opinion on  
> > the substance is NOT yet
> > recorded.
> > Please do NOT repeat earlier opinion: that will just make life  
> > more challenging to weed out
> > duplication.
> > Please do WITHDRAW earlier statements of disagreement if you now  
> > believe the revised text is
> > something that you can support.
> >
> > Comments are open for one week until mid-day Thursday 9 August.
> >
> > After that we will issue version 1.7 which will factor in any  
> > changes (as above) along with
> > factual and contextual additions from ICANN staff.
> >
> > I will advise later how long version 1.7 will be up for comment  
> > before completion of the
> > group's work.
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Philip Sheppard
> > Chairman
>
>
>
> Gruss,
>
> tom
>
> (__)
> (OO)_____
> (oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
>   | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
>   w w w  w