<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting
- To: "Claudio Di Gangi" <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April Meeting
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:35:20 -0400
As long as should is specifically defined as an obligation or duty to
take a certain course of actions in the document, I am probably fine
with using should. My goal is clarity.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:58 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April
Meeting
Thanks Chuck.
I think the meaning of the terms does depend on usage and
context. For example in the BGC recommendations that we are
implementing, 'should' (not 'shall') was used throughout, and I did not
interpret 'should' to mean optional in that context.
in our situation, I think "shall" can be confusing because it
infers that a specific measure or language must be adopted exactly as it
is written, when in fact variations among the groups are permissible.
Since we are proposing guidelines for all groups to use in creating
their own participation rules, I find 'should' to be more accurate with
the notion of what we are expressing here.
To me 'should' means an obligation or duty to take a certain
course of action.
With so much time and energy invested in GNSO improvements, I am
very confident that staff and the Board, and the community, will ensure
that the guidelines are followed and not ignored whether 'should' or
'shall' is used.
claudio
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:19 PM
To: Olga Cavalli
Cc: Claudio Di Gangi; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 23 April
Meeting
Let's make sure we understand the common usage of the two terms:
should ==> optional; shall ==> required.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:55 PM
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.
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|