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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Once again, I agree with Stephane.

It is possible, however, that the group may decide that its work raised issues 
that could use some work beyond the original remit.   I think the group should 
do what it needs to in the time allotted, but I don't see any harm in saying 
that it has also identified further areas for another group to work on, 
possibly in its own sweet time.

Therefore, while I think we should get on with it, if this becomes a sticking 
point I would suggest that we say that our report may include areas that 
another, later group could take up. 

Antony


On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:45 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 
> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>