AW: [Bayesian] [Bayesian] RE: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tony, all,

Just a quick note on this.

Actually the text was provided by Kristina just a few hours before the council meeting last Thursday. And so it was more or less the question to say yes or no rather than having a chance for the amendment ping-pong. Finally I said "yes" taking into consideration the historical aspects you raised - although having some stomach pain regarding the harshness. Reading the statement during the meeting Kristina said that "most of the NCPH" supported it.

I expect the CPH coming back once with a reactive statement.


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Tony Holmes
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. April 2011 13:57
An: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf'
Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [Bayesian] [Bayesian] RE: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions




Malcolm/All

Thanks for your comments. I agree with many of the points you make but we're in a difficult situation here. Historically in cases like this where there is a stand-off between parties in the GNSO the Board choose not to act. In this case that means our concerns wouldn't get addressed. If the motion helps to change that then I don't think anyone could say the multi-stakeholder process has failed. Just left to the Board to decide whether to engage, without this motion being passed would probably result in no further action and indeed claims could then be made that the process fails to put in place the required checks that ensure an open, competitive, environment built on the multi-stakeholder process.

That said, the issues you raise are cause for concern and the wording could certainly be improved, although we may be too late.

Jaime/Wolf-Ulrich - Is there still a possibility to propose  'friendly' amendments to this text?

Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
Sent: 08 April 2011 10:56
To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Bayesian] [Bayesian] [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions


 On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that 
> criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to 
> block any amendment to the RAA.
>
> I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments.
> Sorry for the short notice.

 (The following is just my personal opinion)

 To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm  not entirely comfortable with either motion.

 I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert  that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed,  as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the  Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion.