My only point, and I will make it again, is that the TF can state
whatever it wants to state. I am just saying factually, it is
completely irrelevant that the Council, the Task Force or anyone else
debated the issue of scope and made any findings.....It has no
bearing
on whether the PDP was in or out of scope.
That said, the current wording of the report in 1.7 is accurate. We
would oppose the addition of any other language in that section.
Putting in any language stating that other members discussed the
registry's objections and "found that the PDP was within scope"
would be
as inappropriate as saying elsewhere in the report (as an example),
that the "registry constituency" discussed the BC positions and
"found
that the points made by the BC were not valid."
Both statements above are inappropriate.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development
NeuStar, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:44 PM
To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Liz Williams'
Cc: 'PDPfeb06'
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final
report
I support Avri's comments.
In particular, the members of the TF had numerous conversations about
the
concept in 1.7. I think we talked about language that was
inclusive of
recognizing the concerns of others.... and read that into the meeting
record... I think staff will have captured the language from our
working
session. And that should be included in the report. First it is a
more
balanced portrayal and we need to strive for that balance.
The objections of one constituency have been very very very well
documented.
Facts are our friend, after all. :-)
Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Liz Williams
Cc: PDPfeb06
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report
Hi,
Thanks Liz for the report. I have quickly gone through the first
part, though not the annexes in detail. Here are my notes.
1.3 - Not sure this is true. as i read the rules, if the council has
appointed someone to the TF with a vote, they have a vote. And in
fact it is an equal vote to the others on the the TF - not the
devalued vote as has been the practice in the TF. I do agree that
this was the process the TF worked under - which i believe was also a
valid process.
1.4 - The definition we used included noncom voters - strong support
= 4 or more constituencies plus some nomcom support, support = 3
constituencies plus some nomcom support.
1.7 - I don't think this satisfies the requirement to indicate that
the rest of the constituencies and nomcom members did not accept the
RyC position. Also I thought there was supposed to be a statement
indicating that the council had reinforced the validity of the TF and
its ToR after the RyC issue was originally raised. The way this is
currently written, it looks like the RyC view predominated and the
rest of the TF just went through the motions as opposed to the fact
that the rest of the TF enthusiastically supported the validity of
the ToR.
1.8 - Not sure if the reference to interim chair is a hold over from
the past - replacement chair might be better reference.
1-9 - Not sure what value this table serves in the beginning of the
document when the ToR hasn't even been introduced yet. Certainly a
useful annex.
2-1 I think it should use the language introduce earlier - i.e.
Strong support is 4+nomcom or more. If we are going to use the
language of majority, would that not be super-majority for 1a1,2, 4a/
b, 5, 6 and majorityt 1a3, 3a1, and 3b1?
7-6 you still have a note: Add in "individual participant views".
In terms of the voting chart in the annex, the text of each of the
items being voted on should be included in the annex so that it makes
sense as a reference - it is difficult to tell what corresponds to
the explanations in the main part of the document.
thanks again
a.