RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Final response to the CCT

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri.  My suggestion is to reinsert the original 4.a with an
added parenthetical comment that there were differences of opinion in
the OSC in this regard.  Anyone opposed to that approach?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:08 PM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] FW: Final response to the CCT
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> I for one an unhappy with removing the original 4a.
> 
> The ombudsman is outside the normal ebb and flow of ICANN 
> workflow and as such does not dictate the work patterns 
> insidee the organization but is only empowered to respond to 
> complaints.  So his writings on the ICANn website are 
> orthogonal to any ICANN processes.
> 
> The need for tolerance in GNRO dealing should be obvious to 
> any of use, whether the Board has blessed the idea of 
> Tolerance or not.  To remove this comment is problematic for 
> me.  I reiterate my request to ask the CCT to consider the 
> issue.  I ask this group to tolerate the request for 
> tolerance  even if they think tolerance is a superfluous 
> condition for GNSO work.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Nov 2009, at 13:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Thanks to Ken, the proposed OSC response to the CCT Final 
> Recommendations is attached in both redline and clean 
> versions.  Note that the latest changes are in response to 
> comments made by OSC members and he included comments in the 
> redline version that shows that.
> >  
> > I would like to finalize this response ASAP this week and 
> send it to Mason as chair of the CCT.  Please do one final 
> review.  If you approve the document, please state so by 
> Thursday of this week.  If you approve it with any additional 
> edits, please provide the edits NLT Thursday of this week.  
> Unless anyone requests more time, I will assume that the 
> document is approved by any who do not respond by Thursday.
> >  
> > Thanks, Chuck
> > 
> > From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:24 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Robert Hoggarth'
> > Subject: RE: Final response to the CCT
> > 
> > Chuck:
> >  
> > Attached is Draft-v3 of the OSC letter to Mason Cole with 
> the second round of feedback incorporated-see track changes 
> and margin comments!  Input was received on the email list by:
> > 1.      Wolf-Ulrich
> > 2.      Chuck
> > 3.      Philip
> > 4.      Ron
> > 5.      Vanda
> > 6.      Steve
> >  
> > I attached both REDLINE and CLEAN versions for your convenience.
> >  
> > Ken
> >  
> >  
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:27 PM
> > To: Ken Bour
> > Cc: Julie Hedlund
> > Subject: Final response to the CCT
> >  
> > Ken,
> >  
> > Can you provide a final version of a proposed OSC response 
> to the CCT?  In response to my request for comments on your 
> first draft response from OSC members to the CCT 
> recommendations, I believe we received comments from Philip, 
> Wolf, Ron, Vanda and Steve.  Did I miss anyone?
> >  
> > I am not sure it is safe to conclude that the OSC members 
> who commented approved the document with their comments so I 
> think it is best to run a final version by them one more time 
> and ask for their approval, giving them 5 working days.  What 
> do you think?
> >  
> > Chuck
> > <OSC Summary Comments (DRAFT v3 REDLINE)- CCT Final 
> > Recommendations.doc><OSC Summary Comments (DRAFT v3 
> REDLINE)- CCT Final Recommendations.doc>
> r
>