RE: [council] Statement of work for working group on reserved names - DRAFT for Council

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

Thanks for the feedback Ross.  Please note my responses below.

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:09 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Statement of work for working group on reserved
names - DRAFT for Council

two comments after a quick review -

a) Prior to any discussion of (iv) and (v)WG should have discussion and
make precedent recommendations regarding whether or not there is any
merit in a) adding new names to existing reservations lists, b) taking
names off of existing reservations lists and c) whether or not
reservations lists, in general, are appropriate policy to continue
forward with.

CG: These seem like reasonable suggestions to me.

b) voting should probably be along constituency lines - i.e. one vote
per constituency. I don't think each constituency should be required to
appoint three members to this TF just to ensure it gets the full
defensive benefit of having three full votes. This can be avoided by
simply having one vote per constituency.

CG: I agree that constituencies should not be required to appoint three
members; in fact, I would go further and say that no constituency is
required to appoint any members.  With regard to voting, I think it is
important to call attention to the specific wording in the draft: "In
general, the working group should operate in a consensual approach;
voting, if required, will be on the basis of one member one vote."  Note
that the goal would be to encourage a 'consensual approach'.  In my mind
that means that voting should be minimized and efforts should be made to
reach positions that most if not all of the participants are willing to
support.  Also note that it says, "voting, if required".  Maybe it would
not be required at all, but if it is needed in some, hopefully limited
circumstances, some guidelines might be needed for that to avoid capture
by any particular constituency or group.  I personally wouldn't mind an
approach where votes are only used to determine how many WG members are
willing to support a recommendation simply to determine whether or not
there is rough consensus for any particular recommendation.

-r

On 11-Jan-07, at 5:52 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> <DraftStatementofWorkforWorkingGrouponReservedNames.doc>