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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes I understood that.  And for once did not blame policy staff because i knew 
that.

And it was me that was remis for not having responded to Philip's note at the 
time. 
But was distracted and I guess I did not think one objection would be 
sufficient.
My mistake.

thanks

a.

On 30 Nov 2009, at 17:33, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I am sure that you all are aware of the following but I want to make sure: 
> Ken removed the "tolerance" language in response to Philip's comment because 
> there was little discussion about it on the OSC list.  Please understand that 
> he did not remove it as a Staff action but only as a means of trying to 
> respond to list comments.
>  
> I am glad to see that there is more discussion about this now.  That is why 
> we are doing one more review.
>  
> Chuck
> 
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Robin Gross
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 4:04 PM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] FW: Final response to the CCT
> Importance: High
> 
> I also object to the removal of tolerance from 4a.  
> 
> Why on Earth would we want to remove respect for the spirit of tolerance from 
> our policy discussions?  We need an environment that encourages a broad range 
> of views if we are to be truly diverse and global.  Obviously making room for 
> the expression of a broad range of views (including those we disagree with) 
> requires a spirit of tolerance in our discussions.  
> 
> "Tolerance" belongs back in the document.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>