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

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken Stubbs wrote:

Avri..

I am concerned here that the first conclusion could be skewed by using 
as a basis for the conclusion the total number of participants.

We need clear disclosure here of numbers of participants on a 
"constituency by constituency" basis..

Support can only be defined by relative "constituency " percentages not 
by relative participant percentages.  you could easily have 
participation in a group like this where one constituency could have 
10-15 times the numbers of participants compared with another constituency.

My personal opinion here

Ken Stubbs





Avri Doria wrote:
> 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