[gnso-osc-ops] RE: GCOT Work Product for OSC Review (SOI/DOI document)

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes Philip, the way you have explained the distinction (and distinct
purpose) is consistent to what the Work Team was thinking.

 

I am going to, at this time, suggest my own call to order.  First, I missed
what I consider as substantive comment/questions from Avri Doria.  Second,
Eric Brunner-Williams also offered input.  And while I did offer a response
to Eric, some of the issues he raised were similar to Avri's, and then
subsequently by members of the OSC.

 

Since the Work Team's request to the OSC was for its possible discussion of
this subject matter under "other business" I am going add at this time that
the Work Team will again be taking up the various questions as agenda item
as part of its meeting in Nairobi.  I believe it is also appropriate for us
to discuss the preparation of an Executive Summary for a more complete
package.  So, I am not requesting to retract my request for the OSC to
review assuming time available as part of its meeting in Nairobi, but to
appreciate that I am retracting the finished nature of this document at this
time.

 

Please let me know if there are any objections to this move forward plan.
And thank you for your comments.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 3:45 AM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Ray Fassett'; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Robert Hoggarth'; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: GCOT Work Product for OSC Review (SOI/DOI document)

 

Ray, looks like good work.

I share Chuck's concern about duplication / confusion between statements and
disclosures.

I guess that the intent is that an elected official  eg a Council member is
obliged to make a permanent statement and there is a description of expected
content.

Its timing is determined by the election cycle. Its life is for the term of
office.

 

A disclosure is ad hoc, made by a community member participating in eg a
working group, and its timing determined by the community member. Its life
is for the life of the WG.

 

Is this correct ?

 

If yes lets state so explicitly and remove the vaguer "relevant parties".
Rules should not leave determination of relevance unclear.

 

And while I support the attempt to describe the content of the statement in
the  5 questions, I find the presentation confusing with the sub-categories
to some of the 5. Better to make it a checklist style of say 20 points.

 

And a checklist approach to a disclosure would be helpful too.

 

 

Philip