Re: [Junk released by Allow List] [gnso-osc-csg] OSC CSG Working Team - Next Steps

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Olga,

I too am in favour of sending this forward as a separate
document, and my affiliation is:
Anthony Harris, CABASE - Argentina Internet Association.

Regards

Tony
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Claudio Di Gangi 
  To: 'Olga Cavalli' ; OSC-CSG Work Team 
  Cc: Glen de Saint Géry ; Julie Hedlund ; Robert Hoggarth 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:11 PM
  Subject: RE: [Junk released by Allow List] [gnso-osc-csg] OSC CSG Working 
Team - Next Steps


  Ogla,

   

  Once complete, this is to confirm I support sending 1.4 tool kit document 
forward as a separate document. For this my name and affiliation are : Claudio 
Digangi, International Trademark Association.

   

  Unfortunately, I will not have time to draft comments on 1.1 & 1.2 for at 
least a few days. In the interim, I understand if this work needs to be 
progressed to the full working team.

   

  Thanks to all.

   

  Claudio

   

  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: [Junk released by Allow List] [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:

    a.. 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