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

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support sending 1.4 ahead.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: September-29-09 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