[gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting
Dear Work Team members, Here are the actions/summary from today’s meeting. Please let me know if you have any changes or questions. Our next meeting will be held next Friday, 30 April at 1300 UTC/0600 PST/0900 EST for one hour. The actions and summary are included on the wiki at: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team. Note that for your review I have attached two documents: * Task 1: Revised document incorporating Chuck’s changes and showing as redline new additions for WT review, including introductory material, changes to terminology, and a few comments provided by Chuck that have not yet been discussed. * Task 2: The general notes document provided by Debbie with suggested edits by Olga. Best regards, Julie Discussion/Action Items: Task 2: The WT members agreed that the document provided by Debbie Hughes provided a good framework for the discussion. They also agreed that when the sub team develops its recommendations it should follow the format as in the Task 1 consolidated document. The WT agreed that it was not necessary to schedule a separate call of the sub team members at this time, but that sub team members should provide their comments on the framework document to Debbie for discussion at the next meeting on 30 April. ACTION: WT and sub team members should review the framework document and provide their comments to Debbie. Julie will circulate a document with all comments prior to the meeting on 30 April. Task 1: The WT members discussed the consolidated document and agreed that the format was good. However, they noted and as Chuck had suggested that it would be helpful to have introductory paragraphs of a sentence or two prior to each new section of recommendations. Julie also suggested it would be helpful to have a introduction with an explanation of the arrangement of the recommendations at the beginning of Section 2 Recommendations. In addition, the WT members discussed whether the words "shall" should be changed to "should" for ease of readability. However, some members noted that the meanings of the two words are not interchangeable. In particular, "shall" indicates an imperative, but "should" does not. Thus, if "shall" is changed to "should" some readers could perceive this to suggest that the recommendations in the document are optional, not required. However, WT members noted that there may be some instances when it might be better to use the word "should." The WT members agreed to change all instances of "should" to "shall" to help determine whether this terminology is appropriate in all cases. ACTION: The WT members asked Julie to accept the edits made by Chuck, then to show as tracked changes the additional edits, including the introductory paragraphs and changes to terminology. Attachment:
OSC Constituency Stakeholder Group Work Team Task 1 Recommendations Rev 23 April 2010.doc Attachment:
binSRL8wFKmxA.bin Attachment:
Task 2 general notes + oc.doc
|