[soac-mapo] RE: Please participate - another CWG Rec 6 Poll on Issue 5

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

OK, upon looking at the new poll more closely, I can see that it is attempting 
to clarify an issue: different standards for the Board overturning a 
recommendation Yes or a recommendation No. However, I reiterate the importance 
of the observation that there is, so far, unanimous support in the other poll 
for the idea that the board, not an outsourced entity should make the actual 
decision.

Relating to Chuck's comment on the draft, true it makes no sense to call it a 
"Dispute Resolution Service Provider" if it doesn't make a decision. But this 
is no big deal, if there is consensus against having an outsourced decision, we 
just change the terminology in the final draft. We call it an "Expert Panel" or 
something.

--MM

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Marika Konings
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:53 PM
To: Chuck Gomes; Ken Stubbs; Robin Gross
Cc: Margie Milam; soac-mapo
Subject: [soac-mapo] Please participate - another CWG Rec 6 Poll on Issue 5

As requested by Chuck, please complete the following doodle poll in relation to 
issue 5 (Threshold for Board decisions to reject an application based on 
objections): http://www.doodle.com/6mnkzyxcxupa5pwh. Please complete the poll 
at the latest by Monday 13 September at 17.00 UTC.

Thanks,

Marika

On 12/09/10 22:38, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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