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: "Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:25:20 -0700

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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>




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