Re: [soac-mapo] List Update

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this Chuck that all looks fine to me, but just for the record I
was happy to continue the use of this list as part of the tool set used by
the proposed Cross Community-WG, but certainly we need to build on what has
been done on this list, as you describe below at the very least...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 28 July 2010 10:01, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  I want to thank everyone who has joined this list and give you an update
> on how this list and its discussion will hopefully progress going forward.
>
> I had an excellent call with Heather Dryden and Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> yesterday for the purpose of making sure that each of us as chairs of our
> respective organizations are on the same page and to map out a plan for
> moving this forward as a community effort.  Note that both of them 
> havenowsubscribed to this list.
>
>
> In follow-up to one topic covered in our meeting, Heather sent the
> following message to Cheryl and I:  “As part of GAC advice to DAGv4 to be
> issued end of July/very early August, the GAC anticipates recommending the
> creation of a cross-constituency working group to develop revisions to DAGv4
> regarding MoPo implementation.  A cross-constituency working group would
> need brief, clear, terms of reference to guide its work.  The GAC intends to
> include advice on the terms of reference, as part of this advice on DAGv4.”
>
> The three of us decided that it would be best if this list got a fresh
> start after the GAC advice is submitted.  Our intent is not to minimize
> the discussion that has occurred so far but rather to hold off for a brief
> period until others are able to join and thereby allow them to participate
> as well.  Note that the list archives will still contain the discussionthat 
> has occurred to date so anyone
> who wants to will be able to review it.  And please note that members from
> other ICANN communities, including but limited to the ccNSO, will be
> encouraged to participate.
>
> My understanding from Heather is that the intent of the GAC advice is not
> to change the GNSO New gTLD MAPO Recommendation but rather to possiblyimprove 
> the wording of it and the implementation planfor it.
> In addition, I do not believe that there is any intent to cause delays,
> but rather, by working together we can all contribute in a timely mannerto an 
> improved applicant guidebook with regard to MAPO.
> We don’t anticipate a long process for developing terms of reference and
> hopefully the GAC advice will give us a starting point in that regard.
>
> In the meantime, I ask each of you to be patient while we wait for the GAC
> advice, which we will use as one catalyst for list discussion.  A first
> task for the group when the list discussion begins again will be to develop
> the terms of reference so please be thinking about that with the
> understanding that the purpose will not be a rehashing of arguments we
> have all heard and made in the past but rather a cooperative effort to
> improve the implementation of the MAPO recommendation in a way that fits our 
> diverse
> community appropriately.
>
> I encourage Heather and Cheryl to comment if I have misstated anything or
> to add additional thoughts as they see fit.
>
> Thanks to everyone for your cooperation and willingness to work on this
> effort.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
>