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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No objection whatever.  Good idea.

On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:12 PM, 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.
>> 
> 
>