Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

To my mind the IO status is baseline to any equitable resolution of the Rec
6 concerns.

Any language that gives AC/SOs an 'inside track' to objection and blithely
'overlook' a role for the IO runs the risk of being judged incestuous, with
reason.

We ought not to connive at error.

Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Evan/ Robin,
>
> 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 concerns.
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>
>