[council] friendly amendments to the DSSA motion

[Mike O'Connor]

hi Avri,

the DSSA brought this report to the Council a while back (time doesn't permit figuring out exactly when).  the report was caught in the usual logjam of crisis stuff and was given a very brief acknowledgement at that time.

i would love an extensive discussion in the community and on this list.

the part you're quoting though isn't from the report -- that's based on the letter of submission from us co-chairs to our respective Councils (which we should have linked to this motion -- but didn't, so i've attached it to this note).  in that letter, we co-chairs are pretty emphatic that the "go ahead with Phase II" option is a bad idea, and that sentence is part of our justification as to why we think that way.

sorry for soo terse.  hope this helps.  happy to discuss on the call

mikey







On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Please forgive me for coming late to this topic.
> 
> Just reading the report now, and am wondering about:
> 
> - have these results been extensively presented to the community and discussed with them? (I confessed I missed it).
> - what provisions are being made on the remaining issues as reported in the report?
> 
> Specifically:
> "
>  The  DSSA  believes  that  if  the  Phase  2  effort  should  be  undertaken  under  an  updated  charter,  and  by  a  new  group  of  volunteers  with  additional  expertise  should  lead  that  effort.  These  volunteers  will  need  to  be  aware  that  Phase  2  will  take  a  considerable  effort  to  conclude  (both  in  intensity  and  duration  of  the  work
> "
> 
> If I missed the discussions on the mailing list, phrase point me to the correct archive.
> 
> Or is this something that will be discussed at some other time? What other time?
> 
> Thanks
> ~~~
> avri
> 
> Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com> wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> my apologies for not noticing this sooner, but i have made some very minor changes to the DSSA motion.  i did not proofread my own motion before sending it along and a couple of things needed to be changed from the ccNSO motion that i used as a basis for ours.
> 
> i've attached a redline for your review and am looking for guidance as to the correct way to introduce these changes.  
> 
> i do not believe any of these chances are substantive.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131212/50606974/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSSA - Cover letter final report DSSA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 78451 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131212/50606974/DSSA-CoverletterfinalreportDSSA.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131212/50606974/attachment-0001.html>