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

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Again,

Both of you are not far from what Avri suggested earlier below.  I think we
can take a compromize of looking at the report and identifying what we can
set aside as work that is unresolved.  Sophia


>  Assuming that there is strong support for a recommendation as
> > > written, we should be able to confirm that support with a list of
> > > every councillor that openly supports the position relatively
> > > quickly.  In places where we do not have strong support for a
> > > recommendation we should be able to indentify that quickly as well
> > > and add the issue to the 'work to be done' list.  I think doing this
> > > work is an integral part of:
> > > > wherein the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority
> > > > Vote to present to the Board.
> > > and something we
> >
> > must do before we ask others to consider the report.


>  Agree with both...maybe, the above is where we can start the next step.
> > Sophia
> >
On 30/05/07, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That is in essence what I proposed with the addition that there are
> several that still need more work before we can complete step 1.
>
> 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 2:29 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin
> > Subject: Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the
> > new gTLD recommendations
> >
> > 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >