RE: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and Avri --

The CCT did carefully review the comments but found they would not cause
any change in the final report recommendations and as such won't need to
reconvene.  We recommend the council resolution go forward as is.

Thanks --

Mason Cole
CCT Chair

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Avri Doria; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations


Regarding the ALAC suggestions, I felt like the recommendations
accommodated that in other places.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:52 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I feel that some of the comments deserve consideration and repsonse.
> whether they merit change or no is something the WT needs to consider.
> 
> There are substantive comments, e.g. the one the ALAc sent:
> 
> > but we do have some concerns with the recommendation that the GNSO
> > Council should include in Working Group Charters, the "outcomes
> desired". Working Groups
> > must be free to craft outcomes that address the issues based on
their
> investigation and discussions.
> 
> 
> Also  Kieren make several recommendations that merit response if not
> change.
> 
> So it is not a matter of me wanting some particular change - i did not
> participate and i did not comment.  We put out a report and requested
> comments.  Those comments need to be reviewed, considered and
responded
> to.  ICANN and the GSNSO  have been criticized over the years for
> shoddy response work.  Things have been improving and dealing with
this
> handful of issues and crafting responses/changes is the proper follow
> through to the process.
> 
> a
> 
> 
> Note , I have the same general issue with the CSG report.
> 
> 
> On 3 Jun 2010, at 17:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Avri,
> >
> > Did you identify anything in the comments that you personally think
> > warrants possible changes.  As I communicated, I didn't see anything
> > like that but I would appreciate your opinion as well.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> >> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 5:15 AM
> >> To: Philip Sheppard
> >> Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Motion to Approve CCT Recommendations
> >>
> >>
> >> Philip,
> >>
> >> As I understand it, you are making an executive decision that does
> not
> >> meet the full consensus process for this group.
> >>
> >> I would note, that if the CCT had taken the few minutes when I
first
> >> raised the objection a week ago to review the comments, I would not
> >> have had to raise this objection yet again.  And let me be very
> clear
> >> at this point, I am against forwarding this on for a vote until the
> >> group has declared that it considers the comments as irrelevant as
> the
> >> rest of you seem to.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >> On 3 Jun 2010, at 10:45, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On the general point
> >>> There needs to be a balance between being thorough and being
> >> effective.
> >>> I have strong concerns if we create a process that spends months
> and
> >> months to
> >>> produce recommendations by multi-stakeholder teams, reviewed by a
> >>> multi-stakeholder steering committee, then sent to a multi-
> >> stakeholder Council,
> >>> and then finds there is more substantial work to do.
> >>>
> >>> At some point a judgement has to be taken, a recommendation
> adopted,
> >> and work
> >>> started to bring about change.
> >>> To date we have only talked about change.
> >>>
> >>> If public comments are not substantive then let us please move on
> > and
> >> act.
> >>>
> >>> Moreover, there comes a point when a group will wish to know their
> >> work is done
> >>> and that they are discharged.
> >>>
> >>> On the specific public comments on the CCT report (Note previous
> >> subject lines
> >>> were in error referring to CSG)
> >>> There were 3 on-topic public comments.
> >>> Two from bodies that were able to participate in the process and
> > both
> >> in support
> >>> of the report.
> >>> One from ex staff who raises issues relevant to the
implementation.
> >>>
> >>> So Chuck please do proceed to make the motion and start the work
on
> >> the changes
> >>> the community are calling for !
> >>>
> >>> Philip
> >>>
> >>
> >
>