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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think several people as well as ALAC, have approved the ToR that includes 
both the deletion suggested by Stéphane and the addition I suggested.  

As I said I think it would be a mistake to approve a ToR that does not include 
a statement on what happens after the report is submitted.  If Stéphane and 
others want to insist that the report that comes out September 13 means the 
group is done, then this should be made explicit and not left for people to 
guess about. 

Also, I understood that we had 3 co-chairs.  Are you all consulting on making 
the calls on consensus or has that duty been delegated to Chuck alone?

Thanks
a.


On 25 Aug 2010, at 22:12, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> This issue appears to be the only one at the moment for which there are 
> strong different points of view.  In my view of the list discussion, there 
> seems to be quite a bit of support for removing the word 'preliminary'.  Avri 
> suggested a slightly different approach than Stephane but I don't think 
> anyone else has commented in support of that.  If anyone is supportive of 
> Avri's approach or some new compromise, please speak up.  This could be the 
> last issue we need to resolve in the draft ToR.
> 
> Is anyone aware of any other ToR issues to resolve?
> 
> Considering the short time frame, it would be really helpful if we could move 
> on from our ToR discussion to actually fulfilling the tasks of the ToR.  I 
> would like to propose that we start working on the ToR tasks in our call on 
> Monday.  Does anyone object to that?
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Caroline Greer
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:18 AM
>> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your
>> review
>> 
>> 
>> I believe we ought to remove the word 'preliminary'. We need to put a
>> push on this and try to wrap up for the Board retreat. I agree with
>> Stéphane that one tends to fill the space one has and we are already on
>> a downward track if we accept that the 13th is not really a drop dead
>> date of any sort. It's a challenging timeline but so be it - this issue
>> has unfortunately landed very late in the day. If we for whatever
>> reason do not come up with something conclusive within that timeframe,
>> in my opinion we need some guidance from the Board (via staff) as to
>> what time is available to us and how they view this whole issue.
>> 
>> Assuming that we are close to concluding the ToR for this WG and with
>> the target date of 13th September in mind for a report, I would like to
>> try and move the discussion on a little to our work plans for the
>> remaining two weeks that we have (BTW does that leave us with just two
>> calls to go or should we be thinking about increasing that to two calls
>> a week?). Perhaps this was discussed on Monday's call, which I
>> unfortunately had to miss, but I did not read anything about it in the
>> chat email that Liz circulated.
>> 
>> How do we plan to tackle the terminology / procedure review - will this
>> just be a discussion on our understanding / interpretation or do we
>> have a more definite plan of attack? With such little time available to
>> us, we need to keep this tight.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Caroline.
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: 25 August 2010 14:57
>> To: soac-mapo
>> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for
>> your review
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
>