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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

Well I actually like the idea that the group sets itself a tight deadline of 
Sept 13. So if that's the way it comes across without your addition, I would 
rather keep it that way. Once again, it seems obvious that if there is more 
work to be done, then the group will undertake it. But I am worried that every 
ICANN WG starts off with the premise that it will be allowed to run over its 
planned schedule and that's so OK that we even put it into the group's charter 
or ToR.

Let's just say we're shooting for the 13th. If there's more to be done after 
that, we'll do it. But putting anything implying that in the ToR opens the door 
to the group not really feeling that strongly about meeting its initial 
deadline in my opinion.

Stéphane

Le 25 août 2010 à 13:22, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> Hi,
> 
> It wasn't obvious to me.  With your change, to me, it read like that was the 
> end of it: the group produces a report by September 13 and then was done.
> 
> Despite seeming redundant to you, does this sentence add some content to the 
> ToR that you find objectionable?
> 
> a.
> 
> On 25 Aug 2010, at 05:13, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> To be honest, I don't see the point of this addition.
>> 
>> It seems to me to be obvious that if anything else needs to be done, then 
>> the WG would communicate that to the various SOs and ACs that comprise it.
>> 
>> We are not saying anything specifically useful by adding this sentence in my 
>> opinion.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 24 août 2010 à 19:10, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>