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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Fine with me.  

This is itself may make the point better the anything: There are differences of 
opinion on the OSC on  whether Tolerance should be listed as an appropriate 
spirit for the GNSO.

a.

On 30 Nov 2009, at 14:19, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
>>