Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the way forward - results from the call today.

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mikey,

Thanks for this summary of the call. As always, you make it easy to follow the 
group's work and that really is appreciated.

I am somewhat worried by the second part of your comments and the fact that 
what you communicated to Council was in fact "riddled with errors". As you 
know, Council has since sent your response to the Board. If that response is 
inadequate, and the one you meant to send is in fact very different, I would 
urge the group to provide the Council with a new one asap and to let me know 
when a edited response might be forthcoming so that I may inform the Council of 
this.

As the Board deadline has now passed, it is unlikely that any new response 
would be taken into account by them but I think it would certainly be helpful 
for the Council to know what it is the VI WG really meant to send us.

I am copying Chuck because I'm sure he may want to comment on this as well. As 
Council liaison, I also plan to update the Council but I will wait for you to 
respond before doing so.

Thanks,

Stéphane 

Le 11 oct. 2010 à 20:30, Mike O'Connor a écrit :

> hi all,
> 
> i'm going to push this out to the list a little bit half-baked, because i'm 
> about to jump on a plane and don't want to hold up the conversation while i 
> do all that transit stuff.
> 
> regarding the comments
> 
> -- my idea of just pushing the comments to the Board, and saving them for our 
> Phase II work (as outlined in the call for agenda items), was not the right 
> approach.
> 
> -- we concluded that there is substantive work to do on the comments.  
> essentially, it's the work that we got ready to try to do after the Board 
> resolution came down, but then gave up on when we realized we only had 3 days 
> to do it.  namely, we need to look hard at the Principles section of the 
> document in light of the comments and see if we can move closer to (or 
> achieve) consensus on some points.
> 
> -- it would be especially useful to the Board if we could do that pretty 
> quickly (so i'm really interested in how we get that done -- the idea of 
> splitting into the sub-groups that developed the detailed language in our 
> Annexes appeals to me, but i'm open to other ideas).
> 
> regarding the Final Report
> 
> -- it's agreed that my second sentence to the Council in response to the 
> Board resolution was riddled with errors.  here's what i wrote: "We plan to 
> incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council 
> with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting."   
> 
> -- the first problem is that it allows somebody to conclude that this is the 
> Final Report for the working group (and thus the WG is wrapping up) when in 
> fact this is the Final Report for **Phase I** of the working group.  so that 
> needs to be cleared up.  the WG is **only now** starting the work we were 
> chartered to do -- we crammed Phase I into our schedule in response to the 
> Board resolution at Nairobi and we need to transition back to the charter we 
> were given, not the one we invented.
> 
> -- the second problem is that date -- now that we're going to do some 
> substantive work, i want to unwind that arbitrary date commitment.  we'll get 
> the revisions to the Council once we've completed our work.
> 
> regarding Phase II of our work
> 
> -- we agreed that the actual Board decision with regard to VI for this round 
> will influence the scope and approach of the work we do during Phase II.  so 
> it probably makes sense to wait a bit before jumping into that effort.  how 
> long to wait, and what the trigger is to "restart" the work is still subject 
> to debate.  
> 
> -- my inclination at this moment is to wait on this question and focus on 
> working the public comments into our current report.
> 
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
>