Re: [gtld-council] Rec 20 and

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No unraveling.   I'm just saying that NCUC will likely be filing a 
"minority report" if Rec. #20 does not include some narrowing limitations.
Robin


Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I agree with Avri.  I really don't believe we are unraveling consensus
> but simply trying our best to reach full consensus if possible.  If we
> discover we cannot do that by our next meeting, then I think that is the
> time to move on.
>
> 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: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 7:32 AM
> > To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Rec 20 and 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know if we need a vote today, especially since we are 
> > trying to use a consensus process in the committee and 
> > reserve voting for the council discussions themselves.
> > We currently have wording that has broad support.  As I 
> > indicated earlier this process was one of trying to broaden 
> > that support by making sure that NCUC's concerns had been 
> > understood and that an attempt had been made to accommodate them.
> > If we cannot reach agreement to amend the text then I think 
> > we need to move ahead, and those who remain at variance with 
> > text that has broad support can add text explaining their 
> > concerns to the document.
> > thanks
> > a.
> >
> > On 13 jul 2007, at 04.00, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > Avri,
> > > it simply wont do that we seem to be unravelling consensus 
> > >      
> > everytime 
> >    
> >
> > > one member of the NCUC raises a question on rec 20.
> > > Even more frustrating is that even that argumentation is a moving 
> > > target.
> > > Tweaking the wording will not solve the fact that Robin wants 
> > > something different to everyone else !
> > > For the group I believe we are seeking to give certain 
> > >      
> > parties simply 
> >    
> >
> > > a POSSIBILITY of objection when a name is proposed by for 
> > >      
> > example Mr 
> >    
> >
> > > Shark of OffShore tax haven:
> > > .syracuse-ed
> > > .xhosa
> > > .gulbenkian
> > > .academyfrancais
> > > .jewishdiaspora
> > > .IP-justice
> > > .luleauniversity
> > >
> > > Can we please call the question and vote on Friday's call to settle 
> > > this?
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> >    
>