Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your review

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just a quick note that (based on the last version sent by Liz inclusive of
the changes proposed by Avri) ALAC at its meeting earlier today and subject
to a possible change of date  or change to "a report" as opposed to a date
of final report by Sept 13) endorsed the Draft Tor's, and will revisit any
subsequent additions.edits or changes made between this version and any
final, if required for specific additional endorsement / acceptance.


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 25 August 2010 03:10, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Any opposition to Avri's addition?
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:12 AM
> > To: soac-mapo
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for
> > your review
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23 Aug 2010, at 18:31, Liz Gasster wrote:
> >
> > > <Rec6 TOR updated as of 23 Aug 2300 UTC.doc>
> >
> > I am personally mostly fine with tis version of the ToR.
> >
> > While I understand and accept the idea of removing the word
> > preliminary, it does leave the ToR sort of dangling as to what happens
> > after this report.  but not stating what happens after this report, it
> > makes it seem as if that is the end of the story.
> >
> > And it may be.
> >
> > Perhaps adding something like the following, in addition to removing
> > preliminary, would help:
> >
> > After submission of the report, the CWG will review what, if anything,
> > remains to be done on the defined tasks and will communicate that to
> > the ALAC, GAC and GNSO council.
> >
> > (note i put the 3 in alphabetical order which is something i recommend
> > for elsewhere in the report)
> >
> > a.
> >
>
>
>