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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

A suggestion.

I am the culprit who initially suggested to insert the term
"preliminary". Because the initial wording seemed to set too rigid a
timeframe that could be hard to meet. But it is true that the word now
presupposes on the contrary that the timeline will slip and reduces
the pressure upon us, which is bad. So OK to delete it.

In general, we all know that this issue must be resolved
satisfactorily by the community in a short timeframe, if we do not
want this to block the new gTLD program. In many ways, the pressure of
time is positive and probably already contributed to the good
cooperative spirit of the fist conference call.

At the same time, it is a key policy issue that must be solved in a
way that will be sustainable in the long term; otherwise, we'll burden
the new TLD program with the potential for many contentious situations
during it implementation. So urgency should not mean haste.

September 13 therefore is an important milestone. I am convinced we
can find by this deadline an agreement on the general approach,
objectives and principles for a solution.

But it is a very, very, short deadline. And while it is a good
pressure, Avri is right to suggest inserting something relating to
what may happen next.

Could we find a middle ground to include Avri's mention of "what
remains to be done", but IN the report, instead of after September 13,
as initially proposed in Avri's wording ? This could read :

"The Rec6 CWG should deliver a report with comments from the GNSO,
ALAC, and GAC not later than 13 September 2010 to meet the 11-day
advance publication that the Board requests for its retreat on new
gTLDs. The report could review what, if anything, remains to be done
to fulfill the defined WG tasks or implement its recommendations."

Hope this helps.

Bertrand

On Thursday, August 26, 2010, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephane.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thu Aug 26 04:45:34 2010
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your 
> review
>
> 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
>>>>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")