RE: [gtld-council] Rec 20 and

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

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>