Thanks for the feedback Ross. Please note my responses below. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:09 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Statement of work for working group on reserved names - DRAFT for Council two comments after a quick review - a) Prior to any discussion of (iv) and (v)WG should have discussion and make precedent recommendations regarding whether or not there is any merit in a) adding new names to existing reservations lists, b) taking names off of existing reservations lists and c) whether or not reservations lists, in general, are appropriate policy to continue forward with. CG: These seem like reasonable suggestions to me. b) voting should probably be along constituency lines - i.e. one vote per constituency. I don't think each constituency should be required to appoint three members to this TF just to ensure it gets the full defensive benefit of having three full votes. This can be avoided by simply having one vote per constituency. CG: I agree that constituencies should not be required to appoint three members; in fact, I would go further and say that no constituency is required to appoint any members. With regard to voting, I think it is important to call attention to the specific wording in the draft: "In general, the working group should operate in a consensual approach; voting, if required, will be on the basis of one member one vote." Note that the goal would be to encourage a 'consensual approach'. In my mind that means that voting should be minimized and efforts should be made to reach positions that most if not all of the participants are willing to support. Also note that it says, "voting, if required". Maybe it would not be required at all, but if it is needed in some, hopefully limited circumstances, some guidelines might be needed for that to avoid capture by any particular constituency or group. I personally wouldn't mind an approach where votes are only used to determine how many WG members are willing to support a recommendation simply to determine whether or not there is rough consensus for any particular recommendation. -r On 11-Jan-07, at 5:52 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

<DraftStatementofWorkforWorkingGrouponReservedNames.doc>