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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.