Re: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Final Report & Staff Memo
Actually Ray, the registrar constituency is well on the record with this position. How much documentation would you like? Not quite on point, but perhaps more important to point out is that you are essentially asking those with dissenting views not to voice their opinion until it becomes a shared opinion. Opinions only become shared realities through discussion - such as those that happen within the Council. Its real tough to make progress on any issues until the range of opinions, interests and positions are understood. This is the second time in recent history that councillors have requested that discussions on specific topics not take place. Is this a new trend? If so, here's my request - let's not have a process discussion for the next month. It would be great if we could stick to substantive discourse for a small period of time. -ross Ray Fassett wrote: Let's please not degrade what has been a sound PDP process up to now, in my view, with personal opinions and innuendo accusatory of the ICANN Board, staff, and/or gTLD registry operators of not minding the public trust without documented support from the communities represented to support such an opinion. The RyC is on record and continues to support a pre-published base contract for reasons articulated in our constituency statement that relate to predictability, streamlining, and objectivity goals, based upon previous experiences learned in the best interests of ICANN (that includes the community). But what RyC members of this PDP won't do - and I encourage other members to refrain from doing - is degrade this PDP process at this late juncture with personal opinion without documented support for whatever the opinion is. This is a public list and interested third parties just may well assume that such documented community support exists from those directly involved offering the personal opinion and innuendo at this time of the PDP.
|