[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] RE: On the basic process question for the gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx working group

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My personal opinion is that the group has some flexibility in terms of
what the report contains.  For sure, it should contain a good summary of
the lessons learned, which can include additional questions raised.  To
the extent that any of the charter questions were answered, the answers
should be included.  If any of the charter questions were not answered,
an explanation would be helpful.  Because the Council will need to
decide on next steps, any recommendations that the WG has would be
useful; if there are multiple recommendations without group consensus,
competing recommendations could be included along with WG levels of
support for each one along with rationale.

Based on what I have seen, the WG has done a very large amount of work
so the report may be very long.  In that regard, an executive summary
would be a very good idea.

Chuck Gomes 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:35 PM
> To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Avri Doria; Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: On the basic process question for the 
> gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx working group
> 
> All,
> 
> Dave mentioned that honestly reporting a problem with the 
> process would be somehow bad for the GNSO. I don't know why 
> he thinks so, and I think pretending that there isn't a 
> problem with the process is a really poor choice. When I 
> brought this matter up several weeks ago to Avri and Chuck, 
> the current chair and co-chair of the GNSO, concealing the 
> nature and scope of the problem was not what they wanted, and 
> as ICANN shifts from a legislative GNSO to a managerial GNSO, 
> with tasks undertaken by working groups such as this one, 
> regardless of Avri's or Chuck's views, it is not what I want. 
> Reform isn't if we have to lie about it.
> 
> So I disagree with Dave on the question of cover-up.
> 
> There are some who want to "accept the charter and set 
> questions as is" 
> and some who want to "recharter and defer and/or revise the 
> set questions".
> 
> That appears to be the fact situation. Both points of view 
> have been explored in detail, and while the "recharter" 
> position does not preclude answering questions, the "accept" 
> position does preclude answering any questions other than 
> those set, however perfect or imperfect.
> 
> Note I've copied both Avri and Chuck in.
> 
> Eric
>