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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I thought that the Rapporteur groups did straw pools, but the TF will  
make recommendations which the Council will then discuss.

so I think it makes some sense that a preface indicates that the  
'policy recommendations' in the document are still only straw polls -  
at least until after the TF and the Council have dealt with them.   
but I don't think it makes sense to change the language in general.


a.

On 2 nov 2006, at 15.51, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> 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".