RE: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Final Report & Staff Memo
- To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Final Report & Staff Memo
- From: "Ray Fassett" <rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:31:57 -0500
Thanks for the clarification Ross w/ regards to your comment being a
registrar constituency position vs. an individual opinion. Honestly, it did
not read that way to me - as well as similar comments by other members - and
my point was simply about being mindful that this is a public list as part
of a formal PDP where others are following along, both interpreting and
drawing conclusions about important subject matter.
Besides this, it is already documented as part of the PDP committee's work
that a strong support recommendation exists for the pre-publishing of a base
contract, consistent to ICANN's core mission and values that includes public
trust. I am not sure what dissenting opinion you are stating that I am
"essentially asking" to not be voiced. The recommendation is already
documented as part of a thorough, fully vetted PDP process, and with strong
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:33 PM
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Philip Sheppard'; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Final Report & Staff Memo
Actually Ray, the registrar constituency is well on the record with this
position. How much documentation would you like?
Not quite on point, but perhaps more important to point out is that you
are essentially asking those with dissenting views not to voice their
opinion until it becomes a shared opinion. Opinions only become shared
realities through discussion - such as those that happen within the
Council. Its real tough to make progress on any issues until the range
of opinions, interests and positions are understood.
This is the second time in recent history that councillors have
requested that discussions on specific topics not take place. Is this a
If so, here's my request - let's not have a process discussion for the
next month. It would be great if we could stick to substantive discourse
for a small period of time.
Ray Fassett wrote:
> Let's please not degrade what has been a sound PDP process up to now, in
> view, with personal opinions and innuendo accusatory of the ICANN Board,
> staff, and/or gTLD registry operators of not minding the public trust
> without documented support from the communities represented to support
> an opinion.
> The RyC is on record and continues to support a pre-published base
> for reasons articulated in our constituency statement that relate to
> predictability, streamlining, and objectivity goals, based upon previous
> experiences learned in the best interests of ICANN (that includes the
> But what RyC members of this PDP won't do - and I encourage other members
> refrain from doing - is degrade this PDP process at this late juncture
> personal opinion without documented support for whatever the opinion is.
> This is a public list and interested third parties just may well assume
> such documented community support exists from those directly involved
> offering the personal opinion and innuendo at this time of the PDP.