[PC-NCSG] [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Thu Oct 9 01:06:30 EEST 2014
sure....
SP
On 2014-10-08, 18:07, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
>>>> >>>> Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
>>>> >>>> Organization: Afilias
>>>> >>>> To: <jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, <council at gnso.icann.org
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>]
>>>> >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08
>>>> >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org <mailto: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>>
>>>> >>>> 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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20141008/c5ba4258/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list