RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Initial comments by registry constituency members on reports being discussed today
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE> <P>interesting point, but doesn't really compute to me. The role of a Task Force is to consider and analyse and to make proposed recommendations, that the Council does then approve, with a real vote, and present policy recommendations to the board, that they can accept, or return, but cannot modify.</P> <P>The registry constituency participated in the PDP Dec 05 policy development process, where we are following a similar process of drafting initial options for policy recommendations, seeking further input/advice/understanding, and evolving and improving the policy recommendation. </P> <P> </P> <P>thus, this post does confuse me. Perhaps is is the effort by one rapporteur, myself, to offer prelminary options and to call them straw proposals, to help the Rapporteur Group to look at options. but each of the options is intended to get to a final set of proposed recommendations, which will then need to go to the Council, after public comment, for discussion and vote. </P> <P> </P> <P>Hopefully, that clears up what the confusion is about how the Raporteur Group A progressed work. </P> <P> </P> <P><BR><BR> </P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif"> <HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1> <DIV></DIV>From: <I>Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>To: <I>"GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>CC: <I>pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</I><BR>Subject: <I>[pdp-pcceg-feb06] Initial comments by registry constituency members on reports being discussed today</I><BR>Date: <I>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:50:45 -0500</I><BR>>Group "B" report<BR>><BR>>The first comment pertains to the Background section where it <BR>>states:<BR>><BR>>3. All recommendations found below are ?straw proposals? after <BR>>discussion<BR>>conducted on four telephonic meetings ? October 11, October 13, <BR>>October<BR>>19, and October 26.<BR>><BR>>In the body of the document, each of the recommendations is called a<BR>>"policy recommendation". This makes the body of the document <BR>>somewhat misleading.<BR>>Certainly ICANN's GNSO does not recommend policies to<BR>>the ICANN Board that are nothing more than straw proposals.<BR>>Let's end any potential confusion here before it starts. Straw <BR>>polls by<BR>>inherent meaning are not policy recommendations that would infer to <BR>>any<BR>>reasonable third party a certain threshold of due diligence vs. that <BR>>of a<BR>>straw poll. In the body, where ever it says "policy recommendation"<BR>>should be replaced by "straw poll result".<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>
|