BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague - WHOIS
BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague 28th June 2012. Whois review team final report
ELISA COOPER: I'M WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, AND THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY BROADLY SUPPORTED THE 16 RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE WHOIS POLICY REVIEW TEAM. WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT ENSURING THE ACCURACY AND RELY BUILT OF WHOIS IS OF UTMOST CONCERN AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE 16 RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE ARE SORT OF THREE AREAS WHICH WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. ONE OF THOSE AREAS IS THAT WHOIS DOES BECOME A STRATEGIC PRIORITY FOR THE ORGANIZATION. THE SECOND IS THAT ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF WHOIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT. AND THE FINAL AREA WHICH WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IS THAT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS TO FIND FOR PROXY AND SERVICE PROVIDERS. WE ALSO FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE BOARD ENSURES THAT THERE ARE THE NECESSARY RESOURCES AND BUDGETS ALLOCATED TO MAKING SURE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE IMPLEMENTED. THANK YOU.
STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
STEVE DelBIANCO: DELL STEVE DelBIANCO. CONSCIOUSNESS OF RISKS TO INDIVIDUALS AND THAT MOTIVATED THE CHAIRMAN TO CONTRAST THE TWO VIEWS AND WEIGH THEM. I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS AS YOU CONSIDER WHAT TO DO WITH THE WHOIS RECOMMENDATIONS YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST WEIGH VIEWS. YOU CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT SOME FACTS BECAUSE GONZALES WITH SUPPORT OF THE BOARD HAS COMMISSIONED FOUR STUDIES SO THAT WE CAN DO FACT-BASED POLICYMAKING ON WHOIS. AND IN FACT, ONE OF TEZ STUDIES WHICH RESULTS SHOULD BE IN IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS IS A STUDY OF WHETHER THERE ARE ABUSES TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARISE AS A RESULT OF THEIR INFORMATION BEING AVAILABLE IN WHOIS. SO IT'S TO THE VERY QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT VIEWS. SOME OF IT NEEDS TO BE ABOUT FACTS. THERE ARE THREE OTHER STUDIES IN WHOIS THAT WILL COME IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS THAT ALSO SPEAK TO THE USE OF PRIVACY AND PROXY SERVICES BY INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS WHETHER THE PRIVACY, PROXY PROVIDERS ARE ADEQUATELY REVEALING. WE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS DESIGNING THE STUDIES. SO WEIGHTED THE VIEWS BUT GIVE A LOT MORE WEIGHT TO THE FACTS, PLEASE.
STEVE CROCKER: I LIKE THAT IDEA. THERE WAS A COMMENT IN A REPORT, A U.S. GOVERNMENT REPORT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT WHOIS DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO SPAM. IN SSAC WE TOOK THAT UP AND RAN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT WITH FAIRLY DRAMATIC RESULTS PUBLISHED IN A SAC DOCUMENT ONLINE NOW. HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND I'M CONTINUING A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY RELATED TO WHOIS. OUR PREVIOUS SPEAKER PROVIDED OUR VIEWS ON THE -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE WHOIS REVIEW TEAM. MY COMMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN OUR VIEW ABOUT THE NATURE AND THE ROLE OF THE VIEW TEAMS. MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE REVIEW TEAMS ARE ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS. BUT THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM AND THAT THEY DO COME WITH TIMELINES THAT ARE BUILT IN. THEY ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE COMMUNITY SELECTS REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE THEN APPOINTED AND THEN INDEPENDENT EXPERTS ARE APPOINTED THROUGH A PROCESS THAT INVOLVES THE CEO/PRESIDENT OF ICANN AND THE GAC CHAIR. SO THE STANDING OF THE REVIEW TEAMS IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. IT HAS ASSIGNED ICANN STAFF AND THE ABILITY TO USE OUTSIDE RESOURCES. IT ALSO ENGAGES IN EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION AS VARIOUS STAGES. IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME FROM THE REVIEW TEAM PROCESS DO HAVE UNIQUE STATUS COMPARED TO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. WE EXPECT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL NOW BE A FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE STAFF AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. WILL THE FEASABILITY STUDY ASSUME THAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED OR WILL THE FEASIBILITY STUDY QUESTION WHETHER THEY SHOULD? AND WHEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS GO TO THE COUNCIL FROM THE BOARD, IF ANY DO, WILL THERE BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE PDPS ARE ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION AND NOT ABOUT REASSESSING THE RECOMMENDATIONS?
STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO JUST TO TAKE PIECES OF THIS IN PARTICULAR ORDER, THE FEASIBILITY IS FEASIBILITY. THAT RECOMMENDATION PRO OR CON, IT'S DELIBERATELY FRAMED AS ASSUME THAT IT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED OR IF YOU'RE ASKED TO IMPLEMENT IT AND TELL US WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED, DO YOU KNOW HOW, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU GOT THIS AS AN ORDER, SAY. I LISTENED VERY CLOSELY TO THEIR CHOICE OF WORDS, AND THE KEY WORD THAT I HEARD WAS THAT THESE REVIEWS HAVE UNIQUE STATUS. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. BUT NOT TO GET INTO UNINTENTIONAL IRONY OR HUMOR, IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT "UNIQUE" MEANS. UNIQUE DOES NOT NECESSARILY, TO MY VOCABULARY, MEAN THAT IT HAS AUTOMATIC OR -- THERE'S PROBABLY BETTER WORDS, THAT THAT BECOMES LAW JUST BECAUSE IT COMES OUT OF THE REVIEW TEAM. THAT WOULD BE A TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT I THINK IT WAS -- IS REALLY OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE. SO THERE IS A NECESSARY STEP WITH A STRONG WEIGHT GIVEN TO THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THESE REVIEWS. AND A QUITE OBVIOUS REQUIREMENT THAT SHOULD WE CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT ONE OR MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR TO MODIFY THEM THEN THE BURDEN IS ON US TO EXPLAIN WHY AND TO MAKE THAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT. AND I SAY ALL OF THAT WITHOUT HAVING A PRECONCEPTION IN MY MIND ABOUT ANY OF THESE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO SIT DOWN AND READ IT. BUT FROM A PROCESS POINTED OF VIEW AND THESE ARE VIEWS FORMED NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WHOIS IN PARTICULAR, BUT WATCHING NOT ONLY THESE REVIEWS BUT EXPERT REPORTS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, THERE IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF HAVING SOME CHECK AND BALANCE AND SOME TENSIONS IN THIS PROCESS. SUBJECT PERHAPS TO A LONGER DISCUSSION, BUT I WANTED TO BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN ABOUT THIS.
MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. THEN I THINK IT'S -- IT'S MARILYN CADE AGAIN. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO REFLECT BACK TO YOU OUR UNDERSTANDING AS THE BC. THIS REVIEW TEAM SELECTED A DECISIONAL PROCESS TO WORK BY CONSENSUS. IT WOULD BE IN OUR VIEW BY DOING THAT THEY PERHAPS NEGOTIATED AWAY SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH FULL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE GAINED ON. THEY AGREED TO WORK BY CONSENSUS. AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE A SERIES OF REVIEW TEAMS AS WE ALL KNOW AND THEY'RE GOING TO OCCUR ON A REGULAR BASIS. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE -- IF WE DO NOT HAVE, AS A COMMUNITY, THE ASSURANCE THAT THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY WILL -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, I THINK WE ARE SOON GOING TO FIND IT VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE WILLING TO DEDICATE THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO WORK IN A PROCESS WHICH IS AN OVERLAY PROCESS ON THE REST OF THE WORK THAT WE DO.
STEVE CROCKER: SO YOU MAKE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POINT. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS WORK BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND THAT IT -- AND THAT IT HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT, NOT ONLY OF IMPROVING OUR SYSTEMS BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED THAT THEIR WORK IS WORTHWHILE. AND I THINK WE'RE IN STRONG AGREEMENT ON THAT. EQUALLY -- AND TWO MORE POINTS THAT I THINK I WANT TO -- I WANT TO RAISE UP FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID AND EMPHASIZE, THE -- THE WORK WITHIN THE REVIEW TEAMS TO CHOOSE WHAT THE BALANCE IS AND TO DO A LOT OF THAT NEGOTIATION GOES A VERY LONG WAY TOWARD MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION VERY LIKELY TO SUCCEED. AND SO THAT PROCESS IS A HEALTHY PROCESS. AND FROM WHERE I'M SITTING THE MORE OF THAT THAT'S DONE, THE BETTER IT IS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AND THE EASIER IT IS TO ACCEPT THAT. THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO BUT NOT OVER THE LINE OF THEREFORE IT MUST BE SO JUST BECAUSE THAT WELL INTENTIONED AND WELL ORGANIZED GROUP HAS DONE THAT. BUT IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD TREMENDOUSLY AND IS EXTREMELY WELCOMED AND PUTS US IN A COMFORTABLE POSITION TO BE ALIGNED.
Thank you BC members for your comments and support of the WHOIS RT final report! Lynn From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:45 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague - WHOIS BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague 28th June 2012. Whois review team final report
ELISA COOPER: I'M WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, AND THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY BROADLY SUPPORTED THE 16 RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE WHOIS POLICY REVIEW TEAM. WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT ENSURING THE ACCURACY AND RELY BUILT OF WHOIS IS OF UTMOST CONCERN AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE 16 RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE ARE SORT OF THREE AREAS WHICH WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. ONE OF THOSE AREAS IS THAT WHOIS DOES BECOME A STRATEGIC PRIORITY FOR THE ORGANIZATION. THE SECOND IS THAT ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF WHOIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT. AND THE FINAL AREA WHICH WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IS THAT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS TO FIND FOR PROXY AND SERVICE PROVIDERS. WE ALSO FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE BOARD ENSURES THAT THERE ARE THE NECESSARY RESOURCES AND BUDGETS ALLOCATED TO MAKING SURE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE IMPLEMENTED. THANK YOU. STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
STEVE DelBIANCO: DELL STEVE DelBIANCO. CONSCIOUSNESS OF RISKS TO INDIVIDUALS AND THAT MOTIVATED THE CHAIRMAN TO CONTRAST THE TWO VIEWS AND WEIGH THEM. I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS AS YOU CONSIDER WHAT TO DO WITH THE WHOIS RECOMMENDATIONS YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST WEIGH VIEWS. YOU CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT SOME FACTS BECAUSE GONZALES WITH SUPPORT OF THE BOARD HAS COMMISSIONED FOUR STUDIES SO THAT WE CAN DO FACT-BASED POLICYMAKING ON WHOIS. AND IN FACT, ONE OF TEZ STUDIES WHICH RESULTS SHOULD BE IN IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS IS A STUDY OF WHETHER THERE ARE ABUSES TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARISE AS A RESULT OF THEIR INFORMATION BEING AVAILABLE IN WHOIS. SO IT'S TO THE VERY QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT VIEWS. SOME OF IT NEEDS TO BE ABOUT FACTS. THERE ARE THREE OTHER STUDIES IN WHOIS THAT WILL COME IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS THAT ALSO SPEAK TO THE USE OF PRIVACY AND PROXY SERVICES BY INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS WHETHER THE PRIVACY, PROXY PROVIDERS ARE ADEQUATELY REVEALING. WE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS DESIGNING THE STUDIES. SO WEIGHTED THE VIEWS BUT GIVE A LOT MORE WEIGHT TO THE FACTS, PLEASE. STEVE CROCKER: I LIKE THAT IDEA. THERE WAS A COMMENT IN A REPORT, A U.S. GOVERNMENT REPORT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT WHOIS DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO SPAM. IN SSAC WE TOOK THAT UP AND RAN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT WITH FAIRLY DRAMATIC RESULTS PUBLISHED IN A SAC DOCUMENT ONLINE NOW. HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND I'M CONTINUING A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY RELATED TO WHOIS. OUR PREVIOUS SPEAKER PROVIDED OUR VIEWS ON THE -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE WHOIS REVIEW TEAM. MY COMMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN OUR VIEW ABOUT THE NATURE AND THE ROLE OF THE VIEW TEAMS. MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE REVIEW TEAMS ARE ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS. BUT THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM AND THAT THEY DO COME WITH TIMELINES THAT ARE BUILT IN. THEY ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE COMMUNITY SELECTS REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE THEN APPOINTED AND THEN INDEPENDENT EXPERTS ARE APPOINTED THROUGH A PROCESS THAT INVOLVES THE CEO/PRESIDENT OF ICANN AND THE GAC CHAIR. SO THE STANDING OF THE REVIEW TEAMS IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. IT HAS ASSIGNED ICANN STAFF AND THE ABILITY TO USE OUTSIDE RESOURCES. IT ALSO ENGAGES IN EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION AS VARIOUS STAGES. IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME FROM THE REVIEW TEAM PROCESS DO HAVE UNIQUE STATUS COMPARED TO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. WE EXPECT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL NOW BE A FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE STAFF AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. WILL THE FEASABILITY STUDY ASSUME THAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED OR WILL THE FEASIBILITY STUDY QUESTION WHETHER THEY SHOULD? AND WHEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS GO TO THE COUNCIL FROM THE BOARD, IF ANY DO, WILL THERE BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE PDPS ARE ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION AND NOT ABOUT REASSESSING THE RECOMMENDATIONS? STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO JUST TO TAKE PIECES OF THIS IN PARTICULAR ORDER, THE FEASIBILITY IS FEASIBILITY. THAT RECOMMENDATION PRO OR CON, IT'S DELIBERATELY FRAMED AS ASSUME THAT IT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED OR IF YOU'RE ASKED TO IMPLEMENT IT AND TELL US WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED, DO YOU KNOW HOW, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU GOT THIS AS AN ORDER, SAY. I LISTENED VERY CLOSELY TO THEIR CHOICE OF WORDS, AND THE KEY WORD THAT I HEARD WAS THAT THESE REVIEWS HAVE UNIQUE STATUS. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. BUT NOT TO GET INTO UNINTENTIONAL IRONY OR HUMOR, IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT "UNIQUE" MEANS. UNIQUE DOES NOT NECESSARILY, TO MY VOCABULARY, MEAN THAT IT HAS AUTOMATIC OR -- THERE'S PROBABLY BETTER WORDS, THAT THAT BECOMES LAW JUST BECAUSE IT COMES OUT OF THE REVIEW TEAM. THAT WOULD BE A TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT I THINK IT WAS -- IS REALLY OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE. SO THERE IS A NECESSARY STEP WITH A STRONG WEIGHT GIVEN TO THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THESE REVIEWS. AND A QUITE OBVIOUS REQUIREMENT THAT SHOULD WE CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT ONE OR MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR TO MODIFY THEM THEN THE BURDEN IS ON US TO EXPLAIN WHY AND TO MAKE THAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT. AND I SAY ALL OF THAT WITHOUT HAVING A PRECONCEPTION IN MY MIND ABOUT ANY OF THESE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO SIT DOWN AND READ IT. BUT FROM A PROCESS POINTED OF VIEW AND THESE ARE VIEWS FORMED NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WHOIS IN PARTICULAR, BUT WATCHING NOT ONLY THESE REVIEWS BUT EXPERT REPORTS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, THERE IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF HAVING SOME CHECK AND BALANCE AND SOME TENSIONS IN THIS PROCESS. SUBJECT PERHAPS TO A LONGER DISCUSSION, BUT I WANTED TO BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN ABOUT THIS. MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. THEN I THINK IT'S -- IT'S MARILYN CADE AGAIN. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO REFLECT BACK TO YOU OUR UNDERSTANDING AS THE BC. THIS REVIEW TEAM SELECTED A DECISIONAL PROCESS TO WORK BY CONSENSUS. IT WOULD BE IN OUR VIEW BY DOING THAT THEY PERHAPS NEGOTIATED AWAY SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH FULL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE GAINED ON. THEY AGREED TO WORK BY CONSENSUS. AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE A SERIES OF REVIEW TEAMS AS WE ALL KNOW AND THEY'RE GOING TO OCCUR ON A REGULAR BASIS. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE -- IF WE DO NOT HAVE, AS A COMMUNITY, THE ASSURANCE THAT THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY WILL -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, I THINK WE ARE SOON GOING TO FIND IT VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE WILLING TO DEDICATE THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO WORK IN A PROCESS WHICH IS AN OVERLAY PROCESS ON THE REST OF THE WORK THAT WE DO. STEVE CROCKER: SO YOU MAKE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POINT. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS WORK BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND THAT IT -- AND THAT IT HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT, NOT ONLY OF IMPROVING OUR SYSTEMS BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED THAT THEIR WORK IS WORTHWHILE. AND I THINK WE'RE IN STRONG AGREEMENT ON THAT. EQUALLY -- AND TWO MORE POINTS THAT I THINK I WANT TO -- I WANT TO RAISE UP FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID AND EMPHASIZE, THE -- THE WORK WITHIN THE REVIEW TEAMS TO CHOOSE WHAT THE BALANCE IS AND TO DO A LOT OF THAT NEGOTIATION GOES A VERY LONG WAY TOWARD MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION VERY LIKELY TO SUCCEED. AND SO THAT PROCESS IS A HEALTHY PROCESS. AND FROM WHERE I'M SITTING THE MORE OF THAT THAT'S DONE, THE BETTER IT IS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AND THE EASIER IT IS TO ACCEPT THAT. THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO BUT NOT OVER THE LINE OF THEREFORE IT MUST BE SO JUST BECAUSE THAT WELL INTENTIONED AND WELL ORGANIZED GROUP HAS DONE THAT. BUT IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD TREMENDOUSLY AND IS EXTREMELY WELCOMED AND PUTS US IN A COMFORTABLE POSITION TO BE ALIGNED.
participants (2)
-
Chris Chaplow -
Lynn Goodendorf