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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My vote is for "should"

Tony
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Victoria McEvedy 
  To: Olga Cavalli ; Gomes, Chuck 
  Cc: Claudio Di Gangi ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-osc-csg 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:48 AM
  Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting


  My vote is for shall -mandatory. 

   

   

  Victoria McEvedy

  Principal 

  McEvedys

  Solicitors and Attorneys 



   

  96 Westbourne Park Road 

  London 

  W2 5PL

   

  T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122

  F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721

  M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169 

   

  www.mcevedy.eu  

  Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972

  This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the 
exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also be 
legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us know by 
reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without reading, 
copying or forwarding the contents.

  This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer is 
created by this email communication. 

   

  From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
  Sent: 27 April 2010 01:55
  To: Gomes, Chuck
  Cc: Claudio Di Gangi; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
  Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting

   

  Dear WT,
  what do others think about the "shall" or "should" usage? 
  We should try to define this so we can move forward with our document.
  After hearing the comments in the call and the different views in the email 
list, I may be more inclined to using "should", but as I am not an English 
native speaker I would welcome other comments.
  Regards
  Olga

  2010/4/26 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

  Please see my responses below Claudio.

   

  Chuck

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
    Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:10 PM
    To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg


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

     

    Chuck,

     

    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.

    [Gomes, Chuck] Couldn't the same reasoning be used to say that we could use 
"shall" throughout?  And that would not leave the possible impression that they 
are optional, thereby providing clarity.  Anytime I see the word should, I 
understand "optional".  Readers often will not go back to an earlier statement 
in a document to see that all the 'shoulds' are actually 'shalls'.  I confess 
that I do not understand why you don't want to be explicit on this.  As far as 
I can tell, we are in agreement about what is required and what is optional but 
you have reservations about making that clear in every instance where that 
applies.  

     

    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.

    [Gomes, Chuck] Agree that variation is acceptable provided requirements are 
fulfilled.  There should be plenty of flexibility regarding how to fulfill the 
requirements.  

     

    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.[Gomes, Chuck]  And I think just the oposite as I hope I 
explained above. 

     

    claudio

     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    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

     

    Claudio,

     

    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

    precisely.

     

    Chuck

     

    > -----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

    > 

    > 

    > 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_operatio

    > 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,

    > 

    > 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.

    > 

    > 

   

   

  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5063 (20100426) __________

   

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

   

  http://www.eset.com

   

  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5064 (20100427) __________

   

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

   

  http://www.eset.com



  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5064 (20100427) __________

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

  http://www.eset.com