[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

We have to pick 1.  We are they they in this case.

If you want to do, I am sure you can.

Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he
wanted it.

avri


On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> I volunteer for that task.  they will not likely pick me though.
> we need lots more names.  I think Milton should volunteer, they will
> never pick him...
> cheers steph
> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote:
>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the
>> EWG Final Report
>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100
>> From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Organization: Afilias
>> To: <jrobinson at afilias.info>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task.
>>
>>
>>
>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and
>> would
>> like to ask for one participant from each SG.
>>
>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names,  I
>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the
>> Council.
>>
>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy
>> staff is
>> also in attendance / engaged.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08
>> To: council at gnso.icann.org
>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final
>> Report
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve
>> Crocker.
>>
>>
>>
>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested
>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this
>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA.
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers
>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the
>> GNSO PDP.
>>
>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the
>> work and
>> background to the EWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response /
>> approach
>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is
>> obviously highly desirable.
>>
>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such
>> response will be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Steve Crocker [ <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>
>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com]
>>
>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10
>>
>> To: Jonathan Robinson
>>
>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN
>>
>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize.
>>
>>
>>
>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session
>> devoted
>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group.  We've reached that
>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in
>> hand but
>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy
>> development process.  Instead, this is the time for us all to put our
>> heads
>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take
>> that step.
>>
>>
>>
>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of
>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical,
>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before
>> attempting to
>> initiate another policy development process.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might
>> choose
>> them.  I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment.  Fewer is always
>> better
>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many
>> who will
>> want to participate.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars
>> this past
>> week.  If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was
>> intended to
>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've
>> ever
>> had before.  That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to
>> understand
>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do
>> have a
>> stronger chance this time.
>>
>>
>>
>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get
>> this
>> right.  The problem has been lingering for a very long time.  We have
>> given
>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the
>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do
>> not have a specific deadline or timetable.  Perhaps that's something that
>> can come from the working group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward.  With the LA
>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule
>> time
>> for the working group to meet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
>