[PC-NCSG] [Urgent] Appointement to working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

On May 10, 2015, at 2:55 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
> 
> I believe that on April 29th Paul withdrew from consideration writing "then I will wait to join the substantive group as you suggest?.

That was my understanding as well, but I wasn?t sure, so left him on the list of volunteers I circulated.

[SNIP]

> Let's remember that this is the DT, not the WG, and as such procedural knowledge and attention to detail are of great importance.

To be honest, I would argue that awareness of the substantive issues is of greater importance than procedural knowledge. If a charter drafting team for a CCWG does not get all the in-scope issues right, it could be burdensome to try to add them post hoc. That will most likely require a revision of the charter by all of the multiple chartering organisations that will initially sign up (different SOs and ACs).

In contrast, a GNSO PDP goes through an issue scoping phase with a round of public comments to serve as a basis for charter drafting, and then there is only one chartering organisation. Makes it a little more straight forward.

Agree that attention to detail is crucial.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr