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

Amr Elsadr aelsadr
Mon Oct 6 15:04:10 EEST 2014 

Hi,

I?m also in favour of Avri repping NCSG on this.

Thanks.

Amr

On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I support Avri doing it, since that will be a lot about process and fixing this "adhocracy" issue again . moreover Stephanie, Amr and other will follow and can participate in the discussion we would have here about this working group.
> 
> Jonathan, expected name by Friday, can we agree by today and move on?
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-10-04 0:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141006/052eb9a6/attachment.html>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list