RE: [nc-org] Re: Revised Statement of Policy

["Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl>]

Cary wrote:

"I think that we should elicit public comment on a report that is a
TF consensus statement. What would the point be in posting material
on which we cannot come to consensus?  We would not be well served
by any action that might be seen as an admission of our inability to
dispatch our task."

I agree. Precisely, points 4 and 5 are of the essence on this matter and we
should try to find a suitable solution between ourselves. I strongly
recommend dealing with this in Montevideo in a face to face meeting before
sending a report 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Cary Karp [mailto:ck@nrm.se]
Enviado el: Viernes, 31 de Agosto de 2001 7:33
Para: nc-org@dnso.org
Asunto: [nc-org] Re: Revised Statement of Policy


Quoting Milton:

> Guillermo and others:
> Everyone is agreed that there is no consensus on points 4
> and 5.
>
> The issues before us is to seek public comment. Please give us
> your opinion on that matter before you leave for Montevideo.
>
> Actually public comment is a required part of ICANN's process.
> I will circulate proposed questions regarding points 4 and
> 5 before travel begins and look forward to your reactions.

I think that we should elicit public comment on a report that is a
TF consensus statement. What would the point be in posting material
on which we cannot come to consensus?  We would not be well served
by any action that might be seen as an admission of our inability to
dispatch our task.

It's one thing eliciting community feedback on a near-final draft of
our report. It's quite another thing effectively to open the
membership of the TF to include anybody who is inclined to
participate in the open discussion. In fact, I would have had no
objection to running this entire exercise on precisely such a basis.
If, however, we're going to respect the clearly articulated
constraints that have been placed on the TF membership, we should do
so with some rigor.


/Cary