ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:29:05 -0700

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






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>