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

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

+1

Stéphane

Le 26 août 2010 à 13:31, Jon Nevett a écrit :

> 
> Let's go with the current draft that includes Stephane's deletion and Avri's 
> addition and move on to the substance.  Thanks.  Jon
> 
> 
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Not to belabor this more than I already have.
>> 
>> One reason I did not include the idea of
>> 
>> "The report could review what, if anything, remains to be done
>> to fulfill the defined WG tasks or implement its recommendations."
>> 
>> Was that, discussing what remained to be discussed and how to phrase it 
>> would probably take time away from completing the substantive report.  That 
>> is why I had thought this would be something we did after we submitted the 
>> report, and perhaps even after we heard what came out of the Board retreat.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> On 26 Aug 2010, at 07:11, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>> 
>>> 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")
>> 
>> 
> 
>