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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree, Avri. 



> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 
> Implementation Discussion
> From: avri@xxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:59:29 -0700
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 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.
> > 
> 
>