RE: [council] An issue or not an issue - that is the question

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

Philip,

I don't totally agree with you regarding the consideration of merits of
an issue when deciding whether to request an issues report.  You are
correct of course that the primary place for doing that is when we
decide whether to initiate a PDP, but if there is already established
work that indicates the merits of the issue are questionable, it is not
necessarily good use of ICANN staff resources to ask them to create an
issues report.  Regardless of how willing ICANN staff is to respond, the
reality of the matter is that their response sometimes means working
longer hours and/or delaying other tasks that has other fallout.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:58 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] An issue or not an issue - that is the question
> 
> 
> I think it worthwhile reminding Council about the origin of 
> an issues report (versus agreeing to start a PDP).
> The issues report is intended to clarify that there is indeed 
> an issue.
> No more, no less.
> It maps out an issue in an unbiased way to then allow Council 
> to vote on its merits.
> 
> The vote on whether to ask for an Issues Report should be a 
> collegiate action of Council meaning that:
> a) someone thinks there is an issue
> b) Council recognises there is an issue.
> 
> The vote should NOT be based on Council's view of the merits 
> of any possible outcome or resources. These questions come later.
> The reasons to vote NO are:
> a) it is outside of the scope of the GNSO
> b) it is an issue best dealt with bilaterally by the parties concerned
> c) it is in scope but of trivial importance.
> 
> The reasons to vote YES are:
> a) it is an issue and is in scope of the GNSO
> b) I hate all possible outcomes but recognise it is an issue 
> and in scope
> c) I like some possible outcomes and recognise it is an issue 
> and in scope.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
>