RE: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Final Report & Staff Memo

["Ray Fassett" <rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
support.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[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 
new trend?

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.

-ross

Ray Fassett wrote:
> Let's please not degrade what has been a sound PDP process up to now, in
my
> 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
such
> an opinion.
> 
> The RyC is on record and continues to support a pre-published base
contract
> 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
> community).
> 
> But what RyC members of this PDP won't do - and I encourage other members
to
> refrain from doing - is degrade this PDP process at this late juncture
with
> personal opinion without documented support for whatever the opinion is.
> This is a public list and interested third parties just may well assume
that
> such documented community support exists from those directly involved
> offering the personal opinion and innuendo at this time of the PDP.
>