[bc-gnso] Draft STI Report - V4 for your review

Philip Sheppard philip.sheppard at aim.be
Thu Dec 10 09:09:14 UTC 2009

Zahid, Mike
once again many thanks for your work on this.
It is absolutely essential that we do not let go of this opportunity to right a
major flaw in the current proposals for new TLDs.
So AIM supports the position you are taking.
Minority reports from constituencies
Personally I believe the shifting of minority report detail from constituencies
to an annex is a bad idea.
It compromises the essential communication and provides a false perception of
Footnotes and annexes are not expected to contain substantive material relevant
to a decision maker.
When they do it is typically a result of an intent to mislead.
If we have lost this argument on the STI group so be it.
But it is worth making this higher level point and perhaps raising the principle
to Council or one of the admin groups to establish a general policy about the
construct of Council reports.
On minority opinion WITHIN the BC
We do try to work by consensus and have a system in place to solve disputes by
debate or ultimately by vote.
When time does not allow for that it may be appropriate to provide decision
makers with relevant information on disagreement and so mention specifically the
organisations objecting. That way the rationale of the objection can be
understood in context. 
Hope this helps. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091210/7b50e065/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list