[council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
Wed Apr 13 18:26:37 UTC 2011
You resolve it by engaging in discussions with the other SO/AC. IN this example, Lesley Cowley, the ccNSO chair came back to us and said the SSAC has an issue with some of the language and that is why the ccNSO needed to discuss it with them. If we asked, I am sure they would involve the GNSO in those discussions, and I am confident the groups could work through it.
Coming to consensus does take time, no argument there. But very rarely will there be true areas of deadlock that cannot be worked through, and if there are areas, then the report makes it clear what those areas are and the rationale of each SO/AC for supporting the position they do.
That can only be done if each SO/AC waits to get input from the other SO/AC.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:21 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council at gnso.icann.org GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
2011/4/14 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>
As much as I love being told I am “incoherent”, I have to admit I don’t understand your response. Literally, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I said "incoherent position" that is quite different than calling you "incoherent". just for clarification.
If you recall during the Council meeting, I wanted to remove the words “forward to the Board” from the resolution in this case, because the ccNSO had not yet had a chance to weigh in on it. I was afraid that they may not agree with everything and if they did not, then we would have to work things out with the ccNSO to ensure consistency. Once we had a report that we could both support, only then should we forward to the Board. To do otherwise would be for the GNSO to forward 1 version of the report, the ccNSO would forward another version, and somehow we would expect the Board to resolve the differences. To me, that seems unworkable and contrary to bottom-up policy making.
and how we will fix that? it is deadlock otherwise we are prioritizing the response of SO than other .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council