RE: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC CSG Working Team - Next Steps

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

Thanks Olga.  It should come as no surprise that I support sending the 1.4 
recommendation document forward.  I serve on this WT as a representative of the 
RySG and I know for a fact that the RySG could really benefit from some of the 
services in the toolkit.  We have managed without them to date but we would 
still like to be able to receive some of the services as soon as possible.  I 
know that Victoria and SS disagree and I respect their opinion, but I do not 
believe that doing this should detract from other recommendations that we make 
going forward.
 
Regarding 1.1 and 1.2 below, I thought that we had agreed to have the full WT 
review recommendation documents once there was at least rough consensus from 
the applicable sub group.  Can I assume that that is the case for 1.1 and 1.2?  
If not, I suggest that we delay full WT review until that is the case.  The 
purpose of dividing our work into subtasks and forming sub groups to develop 
the initial recommendations was to distribute our work and thereby make it more 
realistic for each of us in terms of time commitment.  Doing full WT reviews 
before the sub groups have reached at least rough consensus on the 
recommendations defeats that purpose to a certain extent.
 
It appears clear that there is consensus among Krista and Tony regarding 1.3 so 
their recommendation document is ready for full WT review.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:42 AM
        To: OSC-CSG Work Team
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Julie Hedlund; Robert Hoggarth
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC CSG Working Team - Next Steps
        
        
        Dear Working Team,
        

        I was away for three days and I am really impressed by the level of 
activity in our mailing list.
        
        After reviewing all the comments, I want to summarize what we agreed in 
our last conference call and propose some next steps to follow. 
        
        In relation with the Subworking team´s draft documents:
        
        1.1: SS will send a new draft version by early this week that includes 
all comments recieved by the subworking team. The draft document will be 
reviewed by the whole working team. A reasonable due date for reviewing this 
draft document must be established.
        
        1.2: Victoria will send a new draft version by early this week that 
includes all comments recieved by the subworking team. The draft document will 
be reviewed by the whole working team. A reasonable due date for reviewing this 
draft document must be established.
        
        1.3: Krista and Tony have already submitted their draft document, that 
contains already all comments from the subworking team. This document is ready 
to be reviewed by the whole working team.
        
        1.4: Julie submitted on 9 September a new draft version of 1.4 subtask 
document that included comments made by Claudio and myself. Some workteam 
members have not had the chance to review this document and will do soon, they 
can also submit comments.
        
        Once the 1.4 draft document is reveiwed and agreed by the working team, 
there has been a suggestion of sending it to the OSC as a separate document, 
before the rest of the documents have been reviewed by the whole working team.
        
        The working team did not reach unanimous consensus.
        
        In this sense, and in the light of all the comments exchanged in the 
call and in the email list, I would like to remind what the Working Group 
Process indicates on this regard:
        

        *       The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning 
all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the 
point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should 
include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone 
with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. 
Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing 
to the minority report.

        (for the whole text of the Working Group Process please refer to: 
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?working_group_process)
        
        After reviewing all the comments in the mailing list, there seems to be 
rough consensus in sending 1.4 toolkit document, as an independent document, to 
the OSC and to the GNSO Council.
        
        In this sense I encourage those not in favour of sending this 1.4 
toolkit document, to send their names and affiliations and their views in order 
to be included in a minority report.
        
        Also all those in agreement of sending the 1.4 tool kit document as a 
separate one, please send name an affiliations to be included in the report.
        
        I really appreciate the high involvement of all the working team, and 
at the same time I want to stress the value of constructive work and the need 
for respecting theoppinions and work of other collegues members of the working 
team and staff.
        
        Althoug we all have the right to express ourselves and support our 
positions, flexibility is many times the best way for a constructive work and 
for a timely and good outcome.
        
        I also want to thank again the excellent work done by ICANN Staff 
involved in this working team.
        
        Looking forward to recieveing your comments.
        
        I send you my best regards.
        
        Olga
        
        
        
        
        
        



        -- 
        Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
        www.south-ssig.com.ar