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

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

Ken Stubbs' position on this is identical to mine. Opening a working 
group to the entire world and inviting any and all with an axe to 
grind to participate is not a proper basis for determining support 
for controversial positions. The fact that 3 or 40 support a position 
means nothing unless their affiliations are taken into account.
David
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Ave, #102A
Reston, VA 20190  USA
(v) +1-312-876-8055
(f)  +1-312-876-7934
http://www.pir.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected 
by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or 
any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and 
deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

At 05:31 PM 8/7/2007, Ken Stubbs wrote:


> 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