[council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 3 July 2014 00:23, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com> wrote:


> A consensus is possible. They should write it. It's their failure that
> they haven't.
>

A consensus involves all parties. Indeed, much of what is advanced already
reflects GNSO positions. So why is the lack consensus at this stage their
failure and not yours?

It is not unreasonable to suggest that, since the NGPC is recommending a
level of RC protection, that the onus is on those who don't like it to
propose an alternative path. You're welcome to advocate outright rejection
of any protection -- which appears to be the current position in the
absence of an alternate proposal -- but I don't consider outright rejection
to be in (my perception of) the public interest, and the ALAC position (and
Board advice) is already on record.

I also don't think that a flat rejection at this stage -- years after the
conversations, bullying  and eventual compromises began --  will succeed to
influence the final decision making (as you know, consensus != unanimity).
But the all-or-nothing gambit is yours to take.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140703/643f1a9e/attachment.htm>