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

Amr Elsadr aelsadr
Thu Oct 9 09:35:48 EEST 2014 

Great. I?ll also let Jonathan know.

Thanks.

Amr

On Oct 9, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 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/20141009/11816eef/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list