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

["Peter Stevenson" <peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I agree with Ken on this.

There has been comments previously (by Tim Ruiz) about getting who is in
support and who is not, and this was turned down and placed into the 'too
hard basket'.

Perhaps by having each 'convention' (Agreed, Support etc) and where each
constituency sits might be another way to gauge the level of support for the
recommendations. This would of course mean getting someone to nominate from
each constituency to co-ordinate on its behalf.


 
Peter Stevenson 
Operations Manager
Direct Line
Telephone
Facsimile
Email
Skype
+61 7 3007 0077 (GMT+10 Brisbane, AU)
+61 7 3007 0070 (24/7 Customer Care)
+61 7 3007 0075
Peter.Stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
stevo50

www.Fabulous.com
________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this
e-mail in any way. Fabulous.com does not guarantee the integrity of any
e-mails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's
own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Fabulous.com. Fabulous.com
does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other
defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other
consequences, which may arise from opening or using the attachments.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:32 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6



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
>>
> 
> 
>