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

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

Thanks for communicating that Mason.  Much appreciated.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:22 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations
> 
> Chuck and Avri --
> 
> The CCT did carefully review the comments but found they would not
> cause
> any change in the final report recommendations and as such won't need
> to
> reconvene.  We recommend the council resolution go forward as is.
> 
> Thanks --
> 
> Mason Cole
> CCT Chair
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:01 AM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations
> 
> 
> 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
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>