ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gtld-council] Rec 20 and

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Rec 20 and
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:00:38 -0700

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


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

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.


On 13 jul 2007, at 04.00, Philip Sheppard wrote:

it simply wont do that we seem to be unravelling consensus
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:

Can we please call the question and vote on Friday's call to settle this?


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy