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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

Did you frame an answer to the issues explaining your reactions or just decide 
that they warranted no further consideration.

Rhanks

a.

On 3 Jun 2010, at 18:21, Mason Cole wrote:

> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>