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

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

No, I do not support Avri's change. Once again, I think one of the major 
problems facing the ICANN community at present is our tendency to embark on any 
task with the tacit assumption that timelines do not need to be adhered to.

However, I recognize that there seems to be overall support for the ToR as it 
stands now, i.e. with the edits suggested by myself and Avri's suggestion 
following on from that.

In the interest of getting on with the actual work, which several people have 
suggested we need to do and I wholeheartedly agree on, I think it would be 
wrong of me to continue to labour this point and not to compromise.

Therefore I suggest we consider this ToR our final version and get on with it.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 26 août 2010 à 07:27, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> 
> Stephane,
> 
> Are you opposed to including Avri's added language to your deletion of 
> "preliminary"?  If not, can you suggest an alternative that would address her 
> concerns?
> 
> Others should feel to respond to these questions as well.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:18 PM
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>