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

[Grant Forsyth <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>]

Milton et al
While I will not be in Montevideo, I do support a f2f meeting (I always find
these are productive).
I will consult with Philip and Marilyn to have one of them stand in for me.
I do NOT think anything should be "published" by the group for wider
consultation until after that meeting.
My preference would be to publish a draft with a set of notes explaining
which particular issues the TF is seeking 
specific input on - perhaps with some explanation as to the differing views
held.
Hope this helps
Regards

Grant Forsyth
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
CLEAR Communications Ltd
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
AUCKLAND
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007


-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Saturday, 01 September, 2001 8:45 a.m.
To: gcarey@carey.cl; nc-org@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-org] Re: Revised Statement of Policy




I agree as well, we should not post it at this stage.

Do we have a f2f meeting day in Montevideo ?

Elisabeth
--

Guillermo Carey wrote:
> 
> 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
>