RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask4 Toolkit- from ss

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

Comments below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
        Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 10:28 AM
        To: OSC-CSG Work Team
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask4 Toolkit- from ss
        
        
Dear Chuck and WT, 

1. There were quite interesting discussions on the topic of pushing
Toolkit alone to OSC and to GNSO Council in the last WT meeting on
Friday, September 25, 2009. 

It was agreed by Chuck that there is no provision in Charter to send
recommendations of one task in piecemeal. However, he was of the view
that as it is not expressly prohibited, it can be sent. My argument is
that once we are doing something out of Charter, why to involve WT. Let
us keep some sanctity to our work. Let the Charter be a sacrosanct
document until it becomes necessary to amend it. Let us not play with
these for narrow ends.
[Gomes, Chuck] Let's be explicity clear: The charter does not say to
send all recommendations together, so would we be violating the charter
if we do that?  

  

However, there is some desperateness in sending Toolkit and the
arguments forwarded in its favor in the meeting do not appear to be
sound. I will support such personal requirements and give a way-out at
the end of this write-up.
[Gomes, Chuck] Nothing desparate, just practical.  

  

2. This write-up is in no way critical to Chuck. I regard him very
highly. I appreciate him for the arguments he puts forth. I have worked
with such talented persons in my long career. It is possible to make a
mountain of nothing with arguments and to skirt important issues by
arguments. Others in the group may not be able to counter argue by their
very nature. I appreciate such successful persons. 

But, in the said meeting, in my view, he faltered a little and went on
giving one argument after another. Also, to oppose other subtasks being
submitted separately he brought out such issues as 'full consensus'. 
[Gomes, Chuck] Don't be afraid to say you disagree with my arguments but
please explain why.  

  

3. In the meeting, while supporting Toolkit submission, one of the
members said that, "we receive lots of papers in Constituencies and it
is difficult to review in piecemeal." He was referring to the all
subtasks 1 to 4 being submitted as and when ready. But he was prepared
to review Subtask 4 if submitted separately. 

  

4. Many of the arguments appeared strange and funny to me. As a result,
I am constrained to write this mail. I will still like to make it clear
that I am not critical to anybody. I am just amused. If it gives any
other impression, the only reason could be that I could not use a better
language. 

  

5. Now, the most Important point: 

Let us close the arguments on Toolkit. 

Chair is supposed to send periodic reports to OSC. She will otherwise
report about completion of Toolkit. OSC Chair can take up from there and
hurry up with Council for whatever it is needed to be done. 

WT will thus be spared from further arguments and will better spend time
on constructive work.
[Gomes, Chuck] Not sure I understand what your suggestion is SS.  Are
you suggesting that Olga go ahead and send the Toolkit of Services
recommendations to the OSC?

 

Best regards, 

SS