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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In which case, and if others agree with this position, we should declare in the 
ToR that it is planned to end with the Sept 13 report.  My issue was that the 
question was left dangling.  So it was not a question of it running over, but 
rather a question of not stating what the intention was for post Sept 13. 
Though, it seemed to me, the original intent of the ToR was that it not end on 
Sept 13 - hence the call for a preliminary report.

There are good reasons to say Sept 13 and it is over.  And I think there are 
good reasons to say Sept 13 is preliminary (whether we call it that or not) and 
that we expect to continue. And I think there is a good reason to say that 
after Sept 13, the group will review  and decide what comes next.  I think we 
should say something. My recommendation was a compromise between the original 
intent expressed in the word preliminary and what seem to be your implicit 
suggestion that the group terminate with the Sept 13 report.  

What I really object to is the indefinite way in which the ToR ends without a 
sentence of some sort.  From my experience in ICANN WGs and WTs and work 
gatherings of all sorts, when a ToR or a charter leaves people uncertain as to 
what comes next, they tend to enter an existential  wilderness and spend a lot 
of time figuring out whether they even have a basis to continue talking.  My 
recommendation was meant to try and forestall that possibility.

So I believe that either the word 'preliminary' should stay in as was the 
original intent, or that some sentence be included, my suggestion or some other 
formulation, indicating what happens next if the report is not just 
'preliminary.'

a.


On 25 Aug 2010, at 08:34, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>