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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was hopeful, maybe naively that you are correct on this: ". . . 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."

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:59 PM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6
> Implementation Discussion
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
>