ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow2tf] Vote

  • To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Barbara Roseman (E-mail)" <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso. Secretariat (E-mail)" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Verhoef (E-mail)" <paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx>, "Sarah B. Deutsch (E-mail)" <SARAH.B.DEUTSCH@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dave Fares (E-mail)" <dfares@xxxxxxxxx>, "Grant Forsyth (E-mail)" <grant.forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard (E-mail)" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Vote
  • From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 22:09:02 -0400
  • Cc: "2DOW2tf" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcREJQx8pEZkASsYR16bI3EJ2asOJAAMLvIQ
  • Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Vote

The BC vote is recorded as follows:

The BC votes to move the report forward for public comment in its entirety. Our reservations are noted below. They do not affect the support to move the report to public comment. 
If there is a special form we should use to vote, I need to find it in my hundreds of emails!!!!
 If not, my vote is conveyed as above. 

The BC records the following reservation comments to be noted in the TF records. 

There are various places within the report where the BC is not in agreement with the 
characterization of the positions taken by the TF and reserves the right to correct these views
in the final report of the TF. We will not hold up the report for these clarifications. 

In particular, the BC is concerned that consideration of a "tiered approach" has been put forward without adequate assessment of "unfunded mandates" to the registrar community, nor the implications to registrants, users, or registrars. This topic does deserve immediate assessment, but we cannot support a recommendation that is not substantiated by a feasibility assessment. Our views on this have been stated in several meetings and we hoe are finally captured accurately. We support studying and assessing the feasibility, impact on users, registrants, and registrars, and the costs to make such a change. Then we can determine our support for implementing this "concept". 

The BC notes that there are in some cases incomplete descriptions of input from different entities of the TF, however, we believe these are omissions due to limits of time or adequate staff support, and therefore, we are not inclined to object to the move of the report for public comment, as long as it is quite clear that this is an Interim Report and should not be consider conclusive of final views of any TF participant. 

The BC thanks all other members of the TF and in particular the chair for their good will, professional behavior, and personal integrity and commitment to the bottom up, consensus based policy development process that ensures ICANN's success. While we may not always agree, we do have a professional obligation and responsibility to support ICANN's policy process, and we appreciate the opportunity to work with others from the community in this process. Finally, the BC thanks the gnso secretariat for their organizational support to the TF.

Finally, it is important to remember that we are working toward consensus based policy, that is implementable. We recognize that we have more work to do, as a TF, once we receive public comment. For instance, we have more work to do, including undertaking GAC input and advise, and Council will undoubtedly establish an Implementation working group process before we finalize our final recommendation to Council. So, we note to our fellow TF members, our commitment to work toward consensus policy recommendations. 

Thanks to our chair for his leadership and significant amount of work. and thanks to several TF members who did really terrific amounts of work and consultations to get us as a TF to this point. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:55 PM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: 2DOW2tf
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Vote

Okay, I found Kathy's document describing the edits to 3.5, and I think 
the elimination of point (f) is the only remaining one.  I've reflected 

Please find attached NEW documents--one that is a redline relative to 
Tuesday's draft; one is a clean Word document; and one is a clean PDF 

Since no one's voted yet, votes will apply to THIS version of the 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>