Re: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Philip,

As I understand it, you are making an executive decision that does not meet the 
full consensus process for this group.

I would note, that if the CCT had taken the few minutes when I first raised the 
objection a week ago to review the comments, I would not have had to raise this 
objection yet again.  And let me be very clear at this point, I am against 
forwarding this on for a vote until the group has declared that it considers 
the comments as irrelevant as the rest of you seem to.

a.

On 3 Jun 2010, at 10:45, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 
> 
> On the general point
> There needs to be a balance between being thorough and being effective.
> I have strong concerns if we create a process that spends months and months to
> produce recommendations by multi-stakeholder teams, reviewed by a
> multi-stakeholder steering committee, then sent to a multi-stakeholder 
> Council,
> and then finds there is more substantial work to do. 
> 
> At some point a judgement has to be taken, a recommendation adopted, and work
> started to bring about change.
> To date we have only talked about change. 
> 
> If public comments are not substantive then let us please move on and act.
> 
> Moreover, there comes a point when a group will wish to know their work is 
> done
> and that they are discharged.
> 
> On the specific public comments on the CCT report (Note previous subject lines
> were in error referring to CSG)
> There were 3 on-topic public comments.
> Two from bodies that were able to participate in the process and both in 
> support
> of the report.
> One from ex staff who raises issues relevant to the implementation.
> 
> So Chuck please do proceed to make the motion and start the work on the 
> changes
> the community are calling for !
> 
> Philip
>