Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6 Recommendations
Issue: Should there be a higher threshold for approving or rejecting third party objections to TLD applications?
We had consensus of needing a high threshold vote of the board to deny a tld - but not to disagree with the DRSP. We have 2 different issues being conflated with this rec and they need to be separated for it to be accurate.
Thanks, Robin On Sep 12, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Margie Milam wrote:
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, MargieFrom: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin GrossSent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:13 AM To: soac-mapoSubject: Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6 RecommendationsI 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
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