RE: [soac-mapo] Please participate - new CWG Rec 6 Poll

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

That is my mistake.  Sorry.  When we discuss 2.2 later today, we will
confirm this.

 

Margie/Marika - Please make the correction in the report, assuming it is
confirmed in today's call.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:36 PM
To: Jon Nevett
Cc: Avri Doria; soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - new CWG Rec 6 Poll

 

Yes, I only voted "yes" in the poll to 2.2 because I shared the same
understanding as below.  But it should really be explicitly stated in
the Rec. as below or support for it will be lost (including mine).

 

Thanks,

Robin

 

 

On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:





I agree with Avri -- I thought that we were going to poll 2.2 with the
following change:

 

                "Recommendation 2.2: If individual governments have
objections based on contradiction with specific national laws, such
objections MAY be submitted through the Community Objections procedure
OUTLINED IN DAGv4."

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

On Sep 16, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote:







On 16 Sep 2010, at 18:50, Marika Konings wrote:




Dear All,

         

        Please complete the following doodle poll
(http://www.doodle.com/yr9hatbfzr4uq8im) for the updated recommendations
that are attached. In cases where there are multiple choices, it is okay
to say that you support more than one if it doesn't go against any other
responses you made.

         

        Please complete the poll by Friday 17 September at 17.00 UTC at
the latest. 

         

        Thanks,

         

        Marika

        <Rec6 CWG Poll 16 Sep 2010.doc>



Explanation of votes

2.2: If individual governments have objections based on contradiction
with specific national laws, such objections should be submitted through
the Community Objections procedure.


I do  not see why we are telling them they _should_ submit an objection.
They _may_ submit, but why are we placing an obligation on them to do
so?


5.2  A higher threshold of the Board should be required to approve a
string.

5.5  Approval of a string should only require a simple majority of the
Board except when the expert input indicates otherwise, in which case a
higher threshold should be required.

Voted no on these two because i do not understand.

In this recommendation I think there is only 1 vote, whether to uphold
the objection or not.
I do not understand under what circumstance there will be a vote to
approve a string under this recommendation.

As far as I can tell, they will not be asked to approve a strong, until
the end of the whole application process.  That vote should be a
majority vote.


a.



 

 

 

 

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