FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report

Sept. 23, 2014

      All,

Please see below from Steve Crocker. 

Given the proposal suggested below and the suggestion that we aim to keep it
to a manageable size, this feels to me like we may want to participate with
around 4 or 5 people (a "handful").
That could work with 1 per SG and possibly one other (one of the Council
leadership group - Chair & VCs?) to make up the five.

I look forward to comment and feedback from councillors so that I can revert
to Steve and we can get together in LA.

Thanks,

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@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

Jonathan Robinson

john＠crediblecontext.com

tags

participants (2)