RE: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community WG charter on "Recommendation 6"

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is starting to sound like the Whois debates.

The GNSO discussed/debated these issues thoroughly and agreed on the
resultant policy. We should continue to support that policy and point to
the record of those discussions. If relatively minor changes in the
language would be helpful (legal/illegal vs. mapo), we can simply form a
drafting team to work on that and create a response to the GAC and
direction to Staff. 


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community
> WG charter on "Recommendation 6"
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, August 26, 2010 10:59 am
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi Stéphane
> 
> While debating across two lists has some drawbacks, since you've raised this 
> here I have two questions.  Given a) the evolving state of the GAC's 
> thinking, and the fact that it's divided a bit with a few pushing a stance 
> that arguably is inconsistent and potentially worse than MAPO while many 
> other members appear not to have settled on a stance and weighed in as yet, 
> and b) there's a whole AC (ALAC) that opposes MAPO as is, a position with 
> which NCUC concurs,
> 
> *could you give me some vision of the scenario in which we resolve everything 
> on a consensual basis in less than three weeks?  how does that work, the two 
> AC's and other unhappy types just relent and say never mind, sorry to have 
> disturbed you, we're fine with it as is?
> *what kind of signal would a hard deadline of 13 Sept convey to the GAC about 
> the seriousness with which we regard their objections and the extent to which 
> we are prepared to engage with them in problem solving?
> 
> Just wondering,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> As an FYI to the Council, I think I should add to Liz' message that the 
> redline part is a discussion that Avri and I have started. I am arguing that 
> the WG should be very strict in its goal to finish its work by the suggested 
> Sept 13 deadline (which is calculated to allow the group's report to be sent 
> to the Board in time for the September retreat).
> 
> As such, I suggested as you can see in the redline that the word 
> "preliminary" be stricken. My rationale being that the group should not start 
> off with the expectation that its set deadline is only for an interim report, 
> but instead work towards reaching its final objectives in the allotted time.
> 
> This suggestion has met with widespread support from the group. Avri however 
> suggested that written this way, the final sentence of the ToR's timeline 
> leaves the document a little unfinished. She suggested adding the sentence 
> shown. I am not in favour, as it reintroduces the notion that it's OK to miss 
> the deadline and carry on working after that deadline has passed. Plus it 
> seems obvious that if the group feels there is more work to do, it will 
> undertake to do it.
> 
> This point is still being discussed by the group.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 26 août 2010 à 02:41, Liz Gasster a écrit :
> All,
>  
> Attached please find the draft charter Terms of Reference for this new 
> community working group, as recently updated by drafting team participants.  
> Redline items are noted for further discussion.
>  
> Thanks, Liz
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>