RE: [nc-intake] Revised Draft

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@netsol.com>]

Philip,

I agree with your overall approach but I do believe it would be helpful to
keep a simple log of agenda requests containing pertinent information and
the reason for rejection.  The log could then be referenced in cases of
questions about agenda actions.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:42 AM
To: nc-intake@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-intake] Revised Draft


Paul
thanks for your comments and support
I think the idea of justification for refusals is a good one but will
probably emerge with IC practise. I am nervous about laying down
prescriptive rules.

Lets think through rejection scenarios.
- We get a proposal we do not fully understand - so we e-mail the author to
find out more. We get no reply.
- We get a reply to such a proposal and realise it is a matter for the ICANN
staff. We forward the item to ICANN staff and copy in the author.
- We get a motion "Ester Dyson should resign immediately"  and reject it.
- We get seventy copies of the same motion. We reject them all.

Do we really have to report this train of events?
Remember, each agenda will have a hyperlink to the e-mail input for that
agenda, so anyone can follow the correspondence if they want to spend the
time.

That way we do not waste time reporting on time wasters!

Philip