Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for this.

I am not all that fussy on who the chartering organization is, or on how many 
there are, or on what process they use to charter the group.

I think it is also possible for a group to self charter.  And then to pass on 
recommendation through letter to the Board just as any outside group can come 
together to make a recommendation.  But if we are to be in any sense a formal 
ICANN group, we need either the chartering voice of the relevant ACs and Sos, 
or we need the board.

I also think it possible for the group to get down to work even if the 
bureaucracy has not had enough time to grind the process yet.  I.e. starting 
discussions and getting the appropriate imprimatur can be done simultaneously I 
think.

a.


On 20 Aug 2010, at 17:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> The Board has not taken any action on this as far as I am aware.  Some
> in the GNSO may request that we wait for the Board to give direction.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:46 PM
>> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6
>> Implementation Discussion
>> Importance: High
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Aug 2010, at 15:06, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> <Rec6 WG Terms of Reference-RG-edits.doc>
>> 
>> I essentially support this formulation with the edits done before me
> by
>> Milton and Robin, though I do have some questions about other content
>> of the ToR.
>> 
>> - i question whether it is possible to  find an appropriate solution
>> without revisiting and possibly revising the understanding  of policy
>> recommendation 6.  I also question to what extent one can separate
>> implementation from policy. We see them as separate because the
>> volunteer group does policy and the paid staff does the
> implementation.
>> But as anyone who have ever done and implementation of any policy or
>> design knows, it is impossible to do just implementation without
> making
>> many, sometime minor sometime major, policy interpretations and
>> decisions along the way.  Hence the need to review implementation for
>> their faithfulness to the original policy/design.  Implementation
>> experience also must be allowed to affect policy.  And if the only
>> reasonable implementation of a policy is something that most cannot
>> accept, then perhaps the original recommendation was the problem and
>> should be reconsidered.
>> 
>> - The report section needed a statement on the possibility of minority
>> reports. I added one.
>> 
>> - The one question that is not answered.  who is chartering this group
>> GAC+ALAC+GNSO or the Board?  It seems that this ToR is setup to report
>> directly to the Board?  Is this the intention.  Does the Board need to
>> review or endorse the ToR?  Or did they empower the 3 chairs and the
>> group in formation with the ability to approve its own ToR?
>> 
>> Also did a few editorials.
>> 
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> a.
>