RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Final response to the CCT

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am sure that you all are aware of the following but I want to make
sure: Ken removed the "tolerance" language in response to Philip's
comment because there was little discussion about it on the OSC list.
Please understand that he did not remove it as a Staff action but only
as a means of trying to respond to list comments.
 
I am glad to see that there is more discussion about this now.  That is
why we are doing one more review.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robin Gross
        Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 4:04 PM
        To: Avri Doria
        Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] FW: Final response to the CCT
        Importance: High
        
        
        I also object to the removal of tolerance from 4a.   

        Why on Earth would we want to remove respect for the spirit of
tolerance from our policy discussions?  We need an environment that
encourages a broad range of views if we are to be truly diverse and
global.  Obviously making room for the expression of a broad range of
views (including those we disagree with) requires a spirit of tolerance
in our discussions.  

        "Tolerance" belongs back in the document. 

        Thanks,
        Robin
        


        On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote:



                hi,

                I for one an unhappy with removing the original 4a.

                The ombudsman is outside the normal ebb and flow of
ICANN workflow and as such does not dictate the work patterns insidee
the organization but is only empowered to respond to complaints.  So his
writings on the ICANn website are orthogonal to any ICANN processes.

                The need for tolerance in GNRO dealing should be obvious
to any of use, whether the Board has blessed the idea of Tolerance or
not.  To remove this comment is problematic for me.  I reiterate my
request to ask the CCT to consider the issue.  I ask this group to
tolerate the request for tolerance  even if they think tolerance is a
superfluous condition for GNSO work.

                a.



                On 30 Nov 2009, at 13:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                        Thanks to Ken, the proposed OSC response to the
CCT Final Recommendations is attached in both redline and clean
versions.  Note that the latest changes are in response to comments made
by OSC members and he included comments in the redline version that
shows that.

                        I would like to finalize this response ASAP this
week and send it to Mason as chair of the CCT.  Please do one final
review.  If you approve the document, please state so by Thursday of
this week.  If you approve it with any additional edits, please provide
the edits NLT Thursday of this week.  Unless anyone requests more time,
I will assume that the document is approved by any who do not respond by
Thursday.

                        Thanks, Chuck

                        From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
                        Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:24 PM
                        To: Gomes, Chuck
                        Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Robert Hoggarth'
                        Subject: RE: Final response to the CCT

                        Chuck:

                        Attached is Draft-v3 of the OSC letter to Mason
Cole with the second round of feedback incorporated-see track changes
and margin comments!  Input was received on the email list by:
                        1.      Wolf-Ulrich
                        2.      Chuck
                        3.      Philip
                        4.      Ron
                        5.      Vanda
                        6.      Steve

                        I attached both REDLINE and CLEAN versions for
your convenience.

                        Ken


                        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                        Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:27 PM
                        To: Ken Bour
                        Cc: Julie Hedlund
                        Subject: Final response to the CCT

                        Ken,

                        Can you provide a final version of a proposed
OSC response to the CCT?  In response to my request for comments on your
first draft response from OSC members to the CCT recommendations, I
believe we received comments from Philip, Wolf, Ron, Vanda and Steve.
Did I miss anyone?

                        I am not sure it is safe to conclude that the
OSC members who commented approved the document with their comments so I
think it is best to run a final version by them one more time and ask
for their approval, giving them 5 working days.  What do you think?

                        Chuck
                        <OSC Summary Comments (DRAFT v3 REDLINE)- CCT
Final Recommendations.doc><OSC Summary Comments (DRAFT v3 REDLINE)- CCT
Final Recommendations.doc>

                r


        



        IP JUSTICE
        Robin Gross, Executive Director
        1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
        p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
        w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx