RE: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

You resolve it by engaging in discussions with the other SO/AC.  IN this 
example, Lesley Cowley, the ccNSO chair came back to us and said the SSAC has 
an issue with some of the language and that is why the ccNSO needed to discuss 
it with them.  If we asked, I am sure they would involve the GNSO in those 
discussions, and I am confident the groups could work through it.

Coming to consensus does take time, no argument there.  But very rarely will 
there be true areas of deadlock that cannot be worked through, and if there are 
areas, then the report makes it clear what those areas are and the rationale of 
each SO/AC for supporting the position they do.

That can only be done if each SO/AC waits to get input from the other SO/AC.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address starting March 21, 2011:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, 
Sterling VA 20166

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:21 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)


2011/4/14 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Rafik,

As much as I love being told I am “incoherent”, I have to admit I don’t 
understand your response.  Literally, I have no idea what you are trying to say.


I said "incoherent position" that is quite different than calling you 
"incoherent". just for clarification.

  If you recall during the Council meeting, I wanted to remove the words 
“forward to the Board” from the resolution in this case, because the ccNSO had 
not yet had a chance to weigh in on it.  I was afraid that they may not agree 
with everything and if they did not, then we would have to work things out with 
the ccNSO to ensure consistency. Once we had a report that we could both 
support, only then should we forward to the Board.  To do otherwise would be 
for the GNSO to forward 1 version of the report, the ccNSO would forward 
another version, and somehow we would expect the Board to resolve the 
differences.   To me, that seems unworkable and contrary to bottom-up policy 
making.

and how we will fix that? it is deadlock otherwise we are prioritizing the 
response of SO than other .

Rafik