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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Stéphane, indeed we do need to focus on the substantiative work
that now needs to begin in earnest.


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



2010/8/26 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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>