Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that we should vote on the whole package also.   But we are 
skipping a step if we just take the package as it currently stands 
without knowing which recommendations in the package are in fact the 
unresolved issues.   

So step1: we should determine with certainty which recommendations 
belong in the package and need no further work.  And step 2: vote on the 
final package.
Robin


Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> What is wrong with voting on the whole package?  As Philip accurately
> pointed out, a vote on one recommendation in isolation might be very
> different than a vote on the total package.  We just need to make sure
> that we have vetted all the issues on individual recommendations before
> we get to that point; in other words, we should do everything we can to
> reach rough consensus on wording that most of us can support.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>
>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:47 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin
> > Subject: Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the 
> > new gTLD recommendations
> > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > 3. We will have to consider and vote on each of the recommendations 
> > > > individually to determine which actually belong in our final report.
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > Why?  It is much simpler and would minimize duplication of effort to
> > > simply identify any items where some people think there is not broad
> > > agreement; then we can focus our attention on those only.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > I agree that we should focus our attention on only those issues where 
> > there is no broad agreement.   But we need to hold a quick 
> > vote on each 
> > recommendation to determine if there is no broad agreement on it.   I 
> > don't think we should presume anything here, we should know. The 
> > implications for this policy are too broad-reaching to fail 
> > to create a 
> > record that explains the level of support for our recommendations.   
> > This could be done in a few minutes and would give us some level of 
> > certainty of where we need to spend our energy, and what must be left 
> > behind.
> > Robin
> >
> >    
>