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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, that is one of the reasons i asked the question about  
participants, trying to figure how many really participated and who.   
When I read 1.6, I was struck by the number of times that alternative  
views were expressed by members of the constituencies and often by  
members of several constituencies.

Also, I guess I thought that one reason for a WG with wide membership  
was to try and find a broader notion of cooperation and support for  
many of the issues.  The report will come back to the council where  
we will evaluate the work and decide based on the normal constituency  
affiliations and votes.  At this point as an individual member of the  
group I was worrying about having an accurate view of the work of the  
WG, which for better or worse was designated as a wider effort open  
'to the entire world.'

One of the things that concerns me is that we have a document here  
which I think essentially matches the 80/20 rule.  A lot of useful  
guidelines for the OPOC have been agreed while some has not and is  
only supported with serious alternate views.  I would hate to see the  
report of what are genuinely agreed guidelines for designing an OPOC  
service tainted by inaccuracy or strong claims from members of  
several constituencies that it does not reflect their impression of  
the support levels.  Mine was a recommendation for caution when  
dealing with the 20%.

thanks
a.


On 8 aug 2007, at 02.43, David W. Maher wrote:

> 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