RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting
- To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-osc-csg <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting
- From: Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:10:20 -0400
Since the Task 1 recommendations are intended to apply equally across all the
GNSO groups, I think as long as we indicate in clear terms which
recommendations are "best practices" (there are only a few of them), then we
could use Should throughout the document without any risk of confusion.
Once our recommendations are approved, GNSO groups will need to develop and
implement their own participation rules consistent with the principles and
guidelines we develop. One element consistent with our approach is the
recognition that it would not be necessarily beneficial for all groups to adopt
the same exact participation rules, or even use the same language that we
propose. As I understand the GNSO improvements process, the idea is that groups
will implement their own participation rules consistent with our general
guidelines and principles, but variation is acceptable as appropriate.
So if we were drafting the actual rules, say for example, through a process to
amend the ICANN bylaws, then I think using Shall would be more appropriate.
However, in our context since we are developing the common principles and
guidelines, I think using Shall could be confusing to some and would prefer to
use Should throughout.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:13 AM
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting
It seems to me, if we are willing to say "these are the implementation
recommendations for common operating principles and procedures for all
groups to abide by." then it would be fine to use the word 'shall' in
all cases where we believe the principle or procedure should be common
across all groups.
I would change the statement slightly to say, "these are the
implementation recommendations for common operating principles and
procedures for all groups to abide by except where otherwise indicated."
I believe there are instances where our recommendations are 'should'
instead of 'shall' and that is another reason for using those words
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Claudio Di Gangi
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:50 PM
> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting
> 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.
> From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
> [owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> 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:
> ns_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,
> 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.