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

[joy]

Hi - I would volunteer, but I will not be at the ICANN meeting, sorry.

Joy
On 4/10/2014 1:11 a.m., 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
>