Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.
- To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>, Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>, soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Heather.Dryden Dryden" <Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>, Frank March <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Van Gelder Stéphane <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>, Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:45:55 -0800
We've had a fair and lengthy airing of the views related to the IO but the CWG
didn't reach consensus on these. We listed "divergence" as the level of
support for the proposed IO recommendation (Recommendation 10.1). I don't
think this requires clarification from the group.
Is there some reason to believe we would now achieve consensus on this issue?
If so, I would be happy to discuss it, but it didn't sound that way from our
meeting in Cartagena. ICANN is accepting public comments for another two weeks
on the PFAG and that probably would be more appropriate vehicle to raise such
I think our task this week is to address the specific items in the Board
resolution, but I welcome the views of others in the group.
On Jan 2, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> I disagree thoroughly. The IO is integral to many of the objections to the
> status quo. Glossing over them at this point does not address such this
> fundamental problem and leaves it to fester.
> Part of the reason we are here, dealing with this core issue so late in the
> TLD process, is because of previous tendencies to sweep contentious issues
> under the rug in the name of expediency, hoping that in the future they'll be
> forgotten or just bullied past. I prefer to learn from mistakes rather than
> repeat them.
> This issue will not magically just go away through one more deferment.
> - Evan
> On 2 January 2011 18:17, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
> I think our current mission is to address the three items in the Board's
> Cartagena resolution (per Margie's 24 Dec note).
> IO wasn't one of them, so I propose we leave any revisiting of that issue to
> the end of our discussions.