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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone,
I am sorry for delay, but I would like to send my support or
not tomorrow and not more tha the day after tomorrow.
thanks

Rafik


2009/9/29 Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> 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
>