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

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

Regarding the ALAC suggestions, I felt like the recommendations
accommodated that in other places.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:52 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I feel that some of the comments deserve consideration and repsonse.
> whether they merit change or no is something the WT needs to consider.
> 
> There are substantive comments, e.g. the one the ALAc sent:
> 
> > but we do have some concerns with the recommendation that the GNSO
> > Council should include in Working Group Charters, the "outcomes
> desired". Working Groups
> > must be free to craft outcomes that address the issues based on
their
> investigation and discussions.
> 
> 
> Also  Kieren make several recommendations that merit response if not
> change.
> 
> So it is not a matter of me wanting some particular change - i did not
> participate and i did not comment.  We put out a report and requested
> comments.  Those comments need to be reviewed, considered and
responded
> to.  ICANN and the GSNSO  have been criticized over the years for
> shoddy response work.  Things have been improving and dealing with
this
> handful of issues and crafting responses/changes is the proper follow
> through to the process.
> 
> a
> 
> 
> Note , I have the same general issue with the CSG report.
> 
> 
> On 3 Jun 2010, at 17:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >>>
> >>
> >
>