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

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Ken Stubbs wrote:
It looks like we need additional clarification here. Where is the link 
to the mp3 recording of our last 2 wg meetings ?

On 9/12/2010 12:39 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> *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,
> > 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>
>
>
>
> 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>