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

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

Avri,

In my mind, the statement you propose leaves the impression that
multiple people on the OSC oppose tolerance as a GNSO objective.  I
don't think that is the case and I am not even sure that it would be
accurate to put Philip in that camp, but I will let him speak for
himself.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:37 PM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] FW: Final response to the CCT
> 
> 
> 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
> >> 
> 
> 
>