RE: RE: [ispcp] A request from the community

["Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>]

I would normally be happy to volunteer but think it should be someone
who has some idea of the actual points of contention, and I don't know
enough (actually, anything) about that.  He is interested in learning
exactly what portions are objectionable and exploring whether there are
more substantial portions where there is some agreement.  I'm not sure
if there can be adequate opportunity to provide that prior to Friday,
but we can offer up some times subject to availability of Tony or Mark's
(or anyone else who can speak to the specifics).  

His answer to Mark's key point below is that any strat plan cannot
remain static, and changes are important and normal...even with
consensus, we'll be making changes, so why not move along now and get on
with it.  These are my words, and not a quote, but be ready to address
the general notion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:21 AM
To: Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Subject: RE: RE: [ispcp] A request from the community

I think we should do this.  Vint is very reasonable on this and I think
he would listen to our argument about the current operational plan
acting as a placeholder.  It would be especially helpful to have this as
a dialogue: perhaps Maggie and Tony leading the way.  

Another key point is the realization that the Strategic plan does not
have consensus buy-in.  Vint seems to accept that: my argument is that a
Strategic Plan not built on consensus process is more dangerous than no
plan at all.

I can imagine the detractors of ICANN saying: "yes, you have a strategic
plan; but you didn't follow your own procedures to develop it."

mark


>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)"
><maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
>To: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>,
> Mark McFadden <mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:00:57
>
>That's a good point.  Maybe in the note where Mark
>attaches the
>statement, there can be a few bullet points on the
>strongest of
>arguments you guys raised at MDP.  He is a little
>worn out today, but
>wants to hear us out without the background noise
>from MC and
>yesterday's larger group.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Greg Ruth
>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:45 AM
>To: Mark McFadden; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: mcf@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ispcp] A request from the community
>
>Mark,
>    I think giving our statement to Vint is a
>splendid idea.  However,
>if he is looking for facts to support a cogent
>argument against
>adopting the current strat plan, namely *why* the
>strat plan is not a
>consensus document, someone would have to give him
>more ammunition than
>our statement contains.  Yes, we went over all that
>at Mar del Plata,
>but some memories are short.
>
>My $0.02,
>Greg
>
>--- Mark McFadden <mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>> All:
>> 
>> Vint Cerf has asked to see out DRAFT statement on
>the strategic plan.
>>  He would like to see it today.  I haven't
>supplied it to him --
>> prior to getting approval from the constituency.
>> 
>> If you have objections to giving Vint a copy of
>the DRAFT version of
>> the statement, let me know by 1630 today,
>Luxembourg time.  If I hear
>> objections, I'll forward a reasonable message to
>Vint.
>> 
>> mark
>> 
>> 
>> Mark McFadden
>> 21st Century Texts
>> Madison Wisconsin
>> mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 


Mark McFadden
21st Century Texts
Madison Wisconsin
mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx