RE: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6 Recommendations

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Robin-

I spent a lot of time looking over everyone's comments and making a judgment 
call on those items where there were conflicting instructions.     You did not 
waste your time  because your comments were considered carefully.     In the 
items below, other comments were made that seemed to conflict with your 
comments.

 It is unreasonable for working group members to expect that all of their 
comments would be included...  there were many comments from others that were 
not included in the draft that was  used for the poll.     However, if after 
the poll there is no consensus on these points as written, the language can be 
amended.    The purpose of the poll is simply to serve as a tool to facilitate 
discussions on Monday's call, and to help finalize the recommendations for 
inclusion in the report.

Best regards,

Margie




From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Robin Gross
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:13 AM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6 
Recommendations

I spent several hours on Friday afternoon editing this draft, but these edits 
don't seem to be included in today's draft.

Some are rather significant concerns that I don't believe we can just ignore.

For example, the wording of Rec. 5 dealing with board decisions to reject / 
deny an application.  Still reads:

Issue:         Should there be a higher threshold for approving or rejecting  
third party objections to TLD applications?

When was there a consensus in this group that we wanted to restrict the board's 
decision AT ALL?

This is the comment I made on Friday in the draft, but is just deleted in 
today's draft with no changes in the wording of Rec. :
[ **** I think the more accurate question here is "what is the threshold of 
board vote needed to approve or reject a new gtld...?"  I don't believe we 
discussed in sufficient detail (if at all) any requirement to restrict a board 
vote to DRSP advice at any voting level.]

I wish I would have known I was wasting my time editing the draft on Friday, as 
I could have spent my time on paid work instead of volunteering for ICANN.  But 
that is not the point, --> I'd really like someone to show me where there was a 
consensus to draft this Rec. this way (restricting the board to DRSP advice at 
all).

We had consensus of needing a high threshold vote of the board to deny a tld - 
not to disagree with the DRSP.    This is a big mistake in drafting that needs 
to be corrected (not ignored).

Thanks,
Robin


On Sep 12, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Marika Konings wrote:


Dear All,

Please complete the following doodle poll at 
http://www.doodle.com/m535usqcsehu7bff. You are requested to indicate for each 
recommendation whether you support the recommendation or not. To express your 
support, please put a tick mark. If you do not put a tick mark, it means you do 
not support the recommendation. Please use the attached document (Emerging 
Principles-4.doc) as your reference tool.

This poll will be used as an aid to determine the level of support for each 
recommendation. The results will be discussed at the next meeting on Monday 13 
September. Please complete the poll at the latest by Monday 13 September at 
17.00 UTC.

Thanks,

Marika

<Emerging Principles-4.doc>



IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: 
robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>