A lot of people put a lot of effort into defining and refining our policy development process over the years. The concerns I have are that the CWG does not replace or undermine that. I believe that is what others have expressed concern about as well. Calling that micromanagement is out of line and just not true. Some have bemoaned what they see as unnecessary process. However, process is what protects this system. Without it, anyone at any time could question the validity of what is done and there would be no defense. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, April 13, 2011 1:07 pm To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
The worries that some on this Council have expressed about the way joint groups work and the risk of seeing them step outside the bounds of the Bottom-up Policy Development Process are clearly real in this context.
the irony is to talk about Bottom-up PDP which is in the meantime hurt by the attempt of micromanagement I am observing from some in GNSO council .
Rafik