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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it.

But will stand aside happily if there is more that one candidate for the
task and someone else is chosen by the PC.

avri


On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names.
> Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr
> suggests.  I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will
> be better after I am trained next week...
> :-)
> On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
>