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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed Sophia.
 
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." 
 


________________________________

        From: Sophia B [mailto:sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:25 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce
Tonkin
        Subject: Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the
new gTLD recommendations
        
        
        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
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >