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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes Avri there are three Co-Chairs it is after all a Cross Community AC-SO
WG not an GNSO one, and yes (as we have before leading up to the formation
of this group and involvement of the AC's {remember there was no general
call to join the original list so only GNSO and a few connected others knew
about it}  the Chairs will decide together on consensus call and with GAC
this might be a different system that the 'norm' for a GNSO-PDP WG => that
needs to be determined as well) ...


And the date in ToR's is an issue for ALAC as well... As I stated we
endorsed the draft ToR's subject to that being a *preliminary* report date
so that there is something to the Board for their retreat and so I'm happy
therefore to follow along those lines and support Frank's interpretation
that that use of the term *report* does not mean it will limit it us too
much if we do not achieve completion  by then and an option to complete our
tasks  still in a timely manner that does not hold up new gTLD
program procession.

So with that  => let's use *report*  and get onto the substantiative
discussions that actually start only now with the newly formed  Joint  Rec 6
WG under these ToR's => recognizing that the prior preliminary discussions
held on the list pre-formation have been  an important foundation.


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 26 August 2010 13:33, Frank March <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Folks, I think it would be too optimistic to suggest that the job will be
> done by 13 September.  I have no problem with the TOR talking of 'a report'
> since that encompasses  'a preliminary report' while leaving the more
> optimistic possibility open.  But to suggest that it *will* be a final
> report is, I think, a step too far.
>
> I strongly support the suggestion from Chuck that the next conference call
> should get to the meat of the issue.  It would be richly ironic if a
> discussion about 'preliminary' vs whatever were to hold up progress on the
> substantive issues.  It is time to put the TOR to bed.
>
> Cheers, Frank
>
> ----
> Frank March
> Senior Specialist Advisor
> Digital Development
> Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development
> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON
> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Thursday, 26 August 2010 3:18 p.m.
> > To: soac-mapo
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of
> > Reference for your review
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local
> government services
>
> Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the
> Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted
> with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient.
> If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery
> to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in
> error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and
> delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
>
>