RE: [gnso-osc] Another Attempt at a Final Response to the CCT

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

How about this as a way forward and get the response finished: include
each of the key comments from OSC members without stating an OSC
position?  We are only trying to give them guidance in the further work
we are asking them to do so providing some alternative opinions in that
regard would seem to suffice. Then let them grapple with it for awhile.
Of course, we will get it back eventually, but the important thing in my
opinion is to respond to the CCT so they can continue their work.

Ken - can you draft some language that would use this approach?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 1:21 PM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Scott Pinzon
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Another Attempt at a Final Response to the CCT
> 
> 
> 
> On 4 Dec 2009, at 18:57, Ken Bour wrote:
> 
> > While some members would like to see "tolerance" added 
> explicitly, others believe that the ICANN code satisfactorily 
> embraces this concept (e.g. third bullet beginning with 
> TREAT) and that the GNSO should adopt the standards as 
> written or seek to have them amended officially by working 
> through the ICANN Ombudsman office.
> 
> 
> I can almost live with it.  I would suggest a variant.
> 
> While some members  believe that the ICANN code 
> satisfactorily embraces the concept of "tolerance" (e.g. 
> third bullet beginning with TREAT) and that the GNSO should 
> adopt the standards as written or seek to have them amended 
> officially by working through the ICANN Ombudsman office, 
> others believe that the ICANN code does not explicitly 
> encourage tolerance but that GNSO processes require it.
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
>