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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,
I don't confirm for sending the subtask 1.4.

Regards

Rafik

2009/10/1 Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Dear SS,
> thanks for letting us know.
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2009/9/30 SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> Dear Olga,
>> I will be sending minority report against sending subtask 1.4 (Toolkit) as
>> a separate document. I will be able to send only after I have completed
>> Subtask 1 work. In case there is some deadline or urgency, please let me
>> know as it will take some time. I will all the details in that report.
>> regards,
>>
>> Regards,
>> SS
>> --
>>
>> --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC CSG Working Team - Next Steps
>> > To: "OSC-CSG Work Team" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" <
>> jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 7:42 AM
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
> www.south-ssig.com.ar
>