RE: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Mawaki,

> 
> I'm afraid the following is a bit too abstract to determine.
> 
> Ie now is not
> > the best
> > time to introduce a new point, but it is appropriate to
> > suggest edits
> > that are consistent with the discussions held within the new
> > gTLD
> > committee.

OK - essentially the point I was trying to make is that we need to
converge on recommendations.

> 
> Scenario: A point is made in a committee session, heard, and
> somewhat considered (a few seconds or dozens of sec.), then
> quickly pushed aside because there was no other participant
> supports it. 
> i) Is that a point that has been "discussed" by the committee?

Yes.

> ii) or is that a "new point"?
> 
> Either way, what are the proponent's options if she believes
> that the point is important (e.g., not just for the sake of her
> constituency but for broader policy goals)? In case of positive
> answer to either i) or ii) when and where is it appropriate to
> take that up, if it is believed that the issue need
> further/substantial consideration before recommendation? 

I think it comes down to whether the point is seen as a "friendly
amendment" - ie in someway enhances the current recommendation, or
whether the point is essentially an argument against the recommendation
as a whole, or is a completely new recommendation.   The recommendations
as they are drafted are intended to reflect the staff's understanding of
the majority.


> 
> Also, I'm wondering if there are any useful steps to ensure that
> the clarifications you provide, when deemed sufficient, make it
> to the the implementation plan. You may set up a policy with
> some intentions and have it later on implemented in a totally
> different direction while conforming to the letter (without
> changing a word, of course.) 

OK.   Similar to the above - but if the clarifications are consistent
with the intent of the recommendation and the genera views of the
committee when they were discussed they should be included in writing.
You should contact staff in the first instance to ensure that material
is included, and if the staff think that it may not be consistent with
the majority view of the committee - then you should raise it at the
committee level (e.g via this mailing list or via a teleconference).

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin