[registrars] WLS and the lessons we can retain

[Jean-Michel]

Tim,

In fact I also regret that everybody was so far from the debate, may be 
by insisting more on the conditions we could get more chance. 
Unfortunately I was at that day not really up to date (I have 2 years of 
ICANN meetings to catch up ;-) so I just realized too late. There were 
no point to debate about WLS but like Tim did we should have 
concentrated our effort on the conditions for implementations.

So I think that lesson can help for the future, may be we just need to 
be closer to that 's really going on.
For a long time I was thinking to have for our constituency a list of  
topics or a to do list we will keep up to date and help us to focus and 
will help us not to forget our targets..
I will volunteer for the maintenance of such a list.
What do you think? Any comments are welcome.

Jean-Michel

Tim Ruiz wrote:

>Eric,
>
>I hear you. But I concur with Jean-Michel. That's why Go Daddy tried,
>perhaps ineffectively, to hammer home the fact that Condition C was not met
>but was simply dismissed by the negotiators without process.
>
>It did bother me that virtually no discussion took place in the public board
>meeting regarding that, or any other issue raised. Especially since two of
>the Board Members are elected by the GNSO who overwhelmingly opposed the WLS
>and whose issues were part of why the six conditions were made. Perhaps the
>law suit had everyone tight lipped.
>
>In any event, this is something the GNSO and its constituencies should keep
>in mind as those Board seats come up again.
>
>Tim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
>[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Michel
>Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:28 PM
>To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
>Cc: elliot noss; registrars at dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [registrars] Fwd: Press Release of 26/03/2004, United Nations
>ICT Task Force
>
>Eric,
>
>Okay I will jump in that discussion cause I had some BoD members who 
>explained to me their vote:
>
>First of all let remind the facts:
>WLS were already decided 2 years ago (I don't remenber which meeting as 
>I was away of ICANN matters at that time) when the Board asked Verisign 
>to comply with 6 conditions.
>
>So the Roma 's vote was not about WLS itself but about if the 6 
>conditions were reached and in that case WLS can fly its way.
>
>This is just facts and have nothing to do with my opinion about WLS 
>being bad or good.
>
>Regards,
>Jean-Michel
>
>
>Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Elliot,
>>
>>Let me know when you get the first BoD member to explain his or her vote.
>>
>>Eric
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>