The milestone/deadline/time line issue has cropped up in some NCSG discussions, so our representatives on the DT may be able to suggest concrete initial starting points for this. Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Mary Wong <MWong@piercelaw.edu>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> CC:GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Glen@icann.org" <Glen@icann.org> Date: 2/2/2010 6:00 PM Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP CharterDrafting Team No they aren’t sufficient. We are looking for an efficient process. Can’t we just estimate some turnaround times on all the tasks? Adrian Kinderis From:Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 9:54 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; Mary Wong; William Drake Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team Adrian, Are the milestones in the current PDP sufficient? They have rarely if ever worked but if setting milestones is the goal, we already have them. Unfortunately though, we moved beyond the process in the PDP several years ago. Chuck From:Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:01 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; William Drake Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team Whilst I agree it would be difficult to perfectly predict the final PDP date, I believe it is imperative that strict milestones be set and aimed for. These milestones should be drafted and included in the charter. Adrian Kinderis From:Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 12:49 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; Mary Wong; William Drake Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team Adrian, As you noted, the motion directs the DT to deliver a proposed charter within 30 days from the date of the motion; that translates to 27 Feb. The next Council meeting after that is the one on 10 March in Nairobi. The 27 Feb completion date will meet the 8 day requirement for motions, so the Council agenda for the 10 Mar meeting will include discussion and approval of the charter. So there are two firm dates: 1) Proposed charter sent to Council not later than 27 Feb; 2) Council action on charter on 10 Mar. I would expect that the proposed charter will include suggested timeframes for the other milestones that you suggest. But I would expect that it will be very difficult to set a final PDP date. To try to do that would put us into the same situation that the unrealistic time requirements in the current PDP does. But I will leave that to the Charter DT. Chuck From:Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 2:27 AM To: Mary Wong; William Drake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team Chuck et al, Can we get a few milestone dates attached to this process from a ‘delivering on time’ point of view? Perhaps something like (and this is very crude and for illustration purposes only); · Charter Drafting Team nominations close (xx/xx) · Charter Drafted (yy/yy) · PDP Process 1 Starts (zz/zz) · PDP Process 1 Completed (aa/aa) · Final PDP Presented to GNSO Council (bb/bb) Even if this is just draft it would provide a timeline for the work to be completed. I believe, given the importance of this task, and the fact that a ‘due date’ was thought important enough to be included in the motion, we should put something in place ASAP. Without it, we could potentially be doomed to ‘phaffing about’ without direction. Thoughts? Adrian Kinderis From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 9:19 AM To: William Drake; Chuck Gomes Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team Thanks to Liz and Chuck for their clarifications and suggestions. I agree that the DT should be reasonably small, and would in this case personally prefer not to set numbers for each SG/SO/AC, or worry about matching/equivalence. In other situations and over other issues, equal representation of each group may be a fundamental concern, but in this case I believe NCSG is recommending Avri and Milton not because we believe we (or everyone) needs at least two (or however many) representatives. Rather, and for the reasons that Bill has stated, Avri and Milton will best represent NCSG in terms of what is likely to be a difficult preliminary issue (i.e. scoping out the WG). Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To: "William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> CC: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/1/2010 4:33 PM Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team I wouldn't see any problem with that. I just think it would be best to keep it as small as reasonably possible because of the short timeframe and limited task. If the CSG wants three to cover three constituencies, would you want three? (BTW, they have not asked for three.) Chuck From:William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:28 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team Chuck, Two. There are some fundamental issues in the air about the proper scope and terms of reference for the WG that need to be sorted out by the DT. Even if NCSG were to resolve its internal differences on these points, there would probably still be differences between the houses once the discussion gets to specifics. We're dealing with a rather variable geometry of perspectives, and as I say both people mentioned will add to working these things through. Best, Bill On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Bill, How many do you think the NCSG needs for the charter drafting team, not for the WG. Chuck From:William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 3:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team Hi And from NCSG, Avri Doria and Milton Mueller. One participant from each SG would not work for NCSG, as we have a couple of contending perspectives in play, with multiple members aligned with each. Avri and Milton have been very active and thoughtful proponents of those respective perspectives, both of which overlap/synergize in some ways with the positions advanced by other SGs. Should be an interesting discussion... Best, Bill On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Glen, Please add Brian Cute from Afilias to this DT. Thanks, Chuck *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************