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

Thu Oct 9 06:06:42 EEST 2014

Hi ,

I think Avri got a clear support and so I will send her name to Glen

Rafik

2014-10-09 7:06 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  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> 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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/fe79c1b2/attachment-0001.html>