Re: [council] Please make comments on

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>]

i personally feel that a names council meeting is NOT the place to provide a
forum for those who are not satisifed with a previous decision. the issues
were discussed and a vote was taken. if any individual or constituancy
wishes to lobby for or against a previous names council decision the best
forum for this is by e-mail to any of the relevent lists or directly to
ICANN board members. You are also aware that the GA and the Board also
provide time at their respective open meetings for public advocacies &
comments by individuals and constituancies as well

if we provide time and a podium for one person or constituancy to lobby &
advocate then it would be incumbent on us to provide equal time for
rebuttals or additional constituancies to do the same. This would
significantly diminish the time available for us to become more informed on
and act on other issues such as the "global outreach" and "developing
countries perspective".

i personally recognize that there will always be parties or constituancies
who may not be happy with each and every names council decision but our
meetings are not intended to be used as opportunities for "public
advocacies" on specific issues.

as such and based on further elaborations provided by the proposer, i do not
feel it is appropriate for this specific item #4 to be placed on the agenda.

ken stubbs


>
> > # 4: I am a little confused about the scope, and large amount of time
> > allotted to this topic. I think that this is something that may be
better
> > addressed by a Task Force. I volunteer to come to the NC meeting in
> Yokohama
> > with a proposal outlining this suggestion. I know it's an issue that
> Working
> > Group D has also been made aware of.
>
> Thank you for your volunteer.
> However, if we can make a time slot for those who want to appeal against
> NC's recommendation to the ICANN Board, it would be more reasonable.
>