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

Thu Oct 9 01:07:25 EEST 2014

Hi,

Are we settled on Avri?s selection yet? We need to let the GNSO council know.

Thanks.

Amr

On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:59 PM, joy <joy at APC.ORG> wrote:

> I also support Avri for this role
> Joy 
> On 7/10/2014 1:04 a.m., Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141009/26aa1ef4/attachment-0001.html>