RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Initial comments by registry constituency members on reports being discussed today

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken:  I have no concerns with that change at this point, though I should
point out that "Policy Recommendation" has been in there for weeks
without criticism.  

If there is support at the Task Force level on the substance, they will
become Policy Recommendations from the Task Force to Council.  If not,
it really doesn't matter to me what we call them in a Rapporteur Group
report.

Thanks.

Jon 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:52 AM
To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Initial comments by registry constituency
members on reports being discussed today

Group "B" report

The first comment pertains to the Background section where it states:

3.      All recommendations found below are 'straw proposals' after 
discussion
conducted on four telephonic meetings - October 11, October 13, October
19, and October 26.

In the body of the document, each of the recommendations is then 
referred to as a
"policy recommendation".  This makes the body of the document somewhat 
misleading.

Certainly ICANN's GNSO does not recommend policies to
the ICANN Board that are nothing more than "straw proposals".
Let's end any potential confusion here  before it starts.  Straw polls
by
inherent meaning are not policy recommendations that would infer to any
reasonable third party a certain threshold of due diligence vs. that of
a
straw poll.  In the body, where ever it says "policy recommendation"
should be replaced by "straw poll result".