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