Maria: >>> "Maria Farrell" <[log in to unmask]> 03/05/07 12:30 PM >>> >My understanding of our process is that task force members can >request changes until the report is finalised. The problem is that the registry constituency is not requesting"finalizing" changes in the report, they are attempting to disavow their own position, while at the same time leaving in place an official constituency statement that completely contradicts what they are saying now. This introduces a disequlibrium in the whole game that could opens us up to hours of more negotiations and renegotiations. I don't think it is fair or productive for ICANN to attempt to accommodate these kinds of maneuvers. As Tim said, if the RyC wants to change, they can change their vote on the Council, they can announce the reasons for it then, and they can issue a report explaining it if they want to. What they should not be allowed to do is renegotiate the entire report based on a disruptive change in their position when none of us has a proper change to respond to their proposed changes. At the very least, Maria, I would allow you to add a sentence such as this: "After the final TF meeting, the Registry constituency announced that while prefers the Opoc solution to the Special Circumstances proposal it belives that the OPoC solution does not adequately address the question of access to unpublished data." That is a factual statement -- it eliminates all the propaganda that Simon sought to insert into the executive summary and accurately summarizes the new RyC position. I will completely and uncompromisingly oppose ANY other change to the report, I hope Tim and others will back me on that.