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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I request that we create a separate poll with these two question:

1.       Should there be a higher threshold for Board rejection of a
string that the third party panel recommended be delegated?

2.       Should there be a higher threshold for Board approval of a
string that the third party panel recommended not be delegated?

 

There are probably other possible questions as well, but a poll on these
should give us enough to communicate some level of support and we can
decide on our language reporting the results on our call tomorrow.

 

Let me encourage everyone to be patient with each other and to assume
the best instead of the worst.  Please communicate issues like  this but
also understand that all of us are working extra hours with a compressed
time schedule.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Ken Stubbs; Robin Gross
Cc: Margie Milam; soac-mapo; Marika Konings
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6
Recommendations

 

Sorry.  I have been traveling to Vilnius with limited access.  Please
answer this question as worded and we will handle the separate questions
on another poll.

 

Marika - Please send out a separate poll with this one separated into
two questions if possible.  If that doesn't work, we will try to resolve
in our call Monday.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:48 PM
To: Robin Gross
Cc: Margie Milam; soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6
Recommendations

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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