[gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the Top Level

[Avri Doria]

On 21 Mar 2012, at 20:12, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

> 1.        First, I asked everyone from the Drafting Team, whether, after review of the comments, their review of the comments changed their support or non-support for the recommendations submitted to the Council. 


that's funny.  as if that bunch ever had the intention of changing it mind on anything. or even seriously considering the arguments of others.  it does not sound as if they discussed any of the issues just checked the box for no, mind has not changed.

what a load.

avri
>From From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?= Thu Mar 22 15:51:30 EET 2012
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Date:         Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:51:30 +0100
Reply-To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Sender:       NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Subject:      SV: [NCSG-Discuss] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the
              Top Level
X-To:         Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA17 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi

I was in the call. Unfortunately only for 30 minutes. Boarding started ;-(((.

It was no so bad. Chuck and some other valuated in particular Avris comments as excellent and very useful, even if they were not ready to walk the walk. Indeed, the question was "Did the comments change your mind". And the answer was on both sides of the spectrum "No". I myself made also clear that the best solution would be to have no motion because everything is in the guidebook. I proposed that in case we have to eat the soup others have cooked, we have to make the text of the motion as neutral and general as possible to avoid the opening of a Pandora`s box and to restrict it to the first round and the top level.

Chuck was arguing in a similar direction to look for a more neutral and general language. I argued that we can not come back with the same text on Monday. Something has to be changed. Chuck proposed to draft some new language. Then I had to leave the call. The redrafted text I have seen now is not satisfactory. With other words, if it comes to voting on Monday, we should consider to vote "NO".

I also asked what the consequences of the GNSO Council vote would be. This is in the hands of the Board and the board has all options, including to ignore the GNSO Council.

Real work will start later with the second level.

Wolfgang



________________________________

Fra: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ACM.ORG]
Sendt: to 22-03-2012 04:51
Til: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Emne: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the Top Level



On 21 Mar 2012, at 20:12, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

> 1.        First, I asked everyone from the Drafting Team, whether, after review of the comments, their review of the comments changed their support or non-support for the recommendations submitted to the Council.


that's funny.  as if that bunch ever had the intention of changing it mind on anything. or even seriously considering the arguments of others.  it does not sound as if they discussed any of the issues just checked the box for no, mind has not changed.

what a load.

avri