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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

As an addition to this discussion, on a related topic, please be informed that 
following on from our successful joint discussion in SFO, the chairs of Alac, 
the ccNSO, SSac and myself are planning to meet informally again in Singapore 
(probably over dinner).

This kind of situation is one case which highlights why this kind of 
interaction is helpful to build communication channels.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone4

Le 13 avr. 2011 à 20:26, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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>
> 
> 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