RE: [soac-mapo] Question on your response to 5.4 polling in todays Rec6CWG

["Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Totally agree Marilyn. Board needs to know all the recommendations from
community. I see no other way to have a bottom up process. 

Best 

 

 Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend

 Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253

Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464

 

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 12:01 PM
To: Milton Mueller; soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Question on your response to 5.4 polling in todays
Rec6CWG

 

Milton, I will only speak for myself. 

 

I disagree that offering advice/recommendation insulates the Board. They own
the decisions. They vote. 

They are responsible. Having a well documented, throughly studied report
from experts doesn't change that. It does strengthen their ability

to make decisions. 

 

I would think in fact that they would be more likely to vote positively
based on the recommendations approach. I u nderstand that you 

see this differently than I do. But, for what it is worth, my "why"...





  _____  

From: mueller@xxxxxxx
To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:35:43 -0400
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Question on your response to 5.4 polling in todays
Rec6CWG

I don't see a swamp here. I see a very simple advisory process that provides
well-informed advice and information, and a mechanism by which the board
takes full responsibility for any decision to kill a TLD application by
upholding an objection. 

 

You reinforce my concerns that the people who want the experts to
"recommend" are basically interested in insulating the Board from
responsibility for making the decision.  

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:19 AM
To: 'soac-mapo'
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Question on your response to 5.4 polling in todays
Rec6CWG

 

Milton,

I am fully aware the group departed from the idea of forcing experts to
recommend.

I disagree.

You will thus ask an ill-equipped Board to make a decision on the basis of a
report which will say "on the one hand but on the other".

 

As a result of that first step into the quicksand the group is now sinking
deeper as it struggles with a complex set of super / simple majority
debates.

 

Forgive me if I prefer not to wade into the swamp.

 

Philip