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

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

Avri,

Did you identify anything in the comments that you personally think
warrants possible changes.  As I communicated, I didn't see anything
like that but I would appreciate your opinion as well.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 5:15 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations
> 
> 
> 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
> >
>