RE: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter

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

Tim's change seems fine to me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:36 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter
> 
> 
> I suggest that the first bullet point under Working Group 
> Processes be modified as follows (inserted the second 
> sentence, the rest is the
> same):
> 
> The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, 
> meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair 
> can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has 
> been covered. Consensus views should include the names and 
> affiliations of those in agreement with that view.
> Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a 
> discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include 
> the names and affiliations of those contributing to the 
> minority report.
>  
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, July 10, 2008 12:15 pm
> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> On 10 Jul 2008, at 17:42, Olof Nordling wrote:
> 
> > Avri, Chuck, all,
> > Starting with Chuck's item 2 - I fully agree that it's a 
> real squeeze. 
> > Let's recall that the PDP rules set out 15 days for this 
> (constituency 
> > statements due at T+35 and Initial Report due at T+50) and 
> even that 
> > isn't easy, although doable (based on experience;-).
> 
> makes sense, especially since that is still the by-laws timing.
> 
> >
> > Then, recalling what we did for the IDN WG, we used the 
> term Outcomes 
> > Report (in drafts 1 to n until we got consensus, then calling it 
> > "final", or rather skipping the prefix "draft" - this in 
> order to save 
> > the expression Final Report to something endorsed by the Council.
> 
> I have long thought of Final report as name required by the 
> by-laws for the document that is produced after the 
> constituency reports and before the deliberations, and not an 
> indicator of ordinality.
> 
> In any case I have modified the milestones to try and take 
> care of these issues.
> 
> >
> > Just my two Euro-cents on this for now.
> 
> I await further euros.
> 
> >
> > Best regards
> 
> thanks,
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>