[gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting

[Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>]

Julie,

thanks for your good work here. I will be on travel, but I will try to review 
this and the Task 2 document and try to provide comments before the call next 
week.

since it was referenced in the call summary, i had a comment for the work team 
in terms of the definitions of should and shall, because I do think they are 
used interchangeably.

see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

also, as we discussed on the call, it was used interchangeably in the BGC 
report, and in the implementation documents that stemmed from the 
recommendations, including the document that develops the working group model 
for the council.

i think we should strive to present our recommendations in a manner that 
reflects the diverse global audience that it its intended to reach, and avoid 
using over legalistic language, especially when participation is voluntary.

we just need to simply state: "these are the implementation recommendations for 
common operating principles and procedures for all groups to abide by."

 if we use that language in our report, there is no ambiguity whether the 
recommendations are optional.

the Board will ensure that the Constituencies and Stakeholder groups are 
compliant with GNSO improvements. it is not something that is open to 
misinterpretation by a reader.

just wanted to let you know my thoughts on this.

have a nice weekend everyone.

claudio

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:04 PM
To: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: [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.