Hi,

Thanks for the update.  And for the attempt to persuade the unpersuadable.

I guess I should tone down the bitter just a smidgen.  It is just that I put a lot into the GNSO over the years (I won't bore you with the accounting of the hours at my normal contracting rates) and once really believed in it, so find the disappointment visceral.

As for everyone voting no, I think it is ok for some to also abstain.  From my viewpoint, I think one should vote No if they think that the motion is a valid and legitimate one and they just disagree with it for one of a 'thousand' possibly valid reasons.  

On the other hand, i think they should abstain if either:

- they have a conflict of interest because they have material or other connection to IFRC/IOC. 
- they think the motion is illegitimate, for reasons such as improper process, non-completion of a full comment period, illegitimate behavior by the chair of the DT ….

And of course they should vote yes if they want to give the IFRC/IOC the power to license, whether directly (which they are rumored to have forsworn) or by contribution, top level names that are similar to the special modified reserve names.

avri

On 22 Mar 2012, at 08:51, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I was in the call. Unfortunately only for 30 minutes. Boarding started ;-(((.
> 
> It was no so bad. Chuck and some other valuated in particular Avris comments as excellent and very useful, even if they were not ready to walk the walk. Indeed, the question was "Did the comments change your mind". And the answer was on both sides of the spectrum "No". I myself made also clear that the best solution would be to have no motion because everything is in the guidebook. I proposed that in case we have to eat the soup others have cooked, we have to make the text of the motion as neutral and general as possible to avoid the opening of a Pandora`s box and to restrict it to the first round and the top level. 
> 
> Chuck was arguing in a similar direction to look for a more neutral and general language. I argued that we can not come back with the same text on Monday. Something has to be changed. Chuck proposed to draft some new language. Then I had to leave the call. The redrafted text I have seen now is not satisfactory. With other words, if it comes to voting on Monday, we should consider to vote "NO". 
> 
> I also asked what the consequences of the GNSO Council vote would be. This is in the hands of the Board and the board has all options, including to ignore the GNSO Council. 
> 
> Real work will start later with the second level. 
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Fra: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sendt: to 22-03-2012 04:51
> Til: [log in to unmask]
> Emne: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the Top Level
> 
> 
> 
> On 21 Mar 2012, at 20:12, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
> 
>> 1.        First, I asked everyone from the Drafting Team, whether, after review of the comments, their review of the comments changed their support or non-support for the recommendations submitted to the Council.
> 
> 
> that's funny.  as if that bunch ever had the intention of changing it mind on anything. or even seriously considering the arguments of others.  it does not sound as if they discussed any of the issues just checked the box for no, mind has not changed.
> 
> what a load.
> 
> avri
>