Good point Ross. Admitting that I have not yet had time to review the draft SoW, I would add to what you said by suggesting that the ToR should include the following if it does not: 1) specific identification of the problems that sunrise periods were intended to solve; 2) an examination of whether implemented sunrise periods were successful in solving those problems; and 3) exploration of alternative ways of solving the problems other than a sunrise period. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:43 PM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group I note that this focuses on process, whereas the GNSO is focused on policies. It might make some sense if this were redraft to focus on examining the appropriateness of sunrise policy vs. that of sunrise processes. The processes are typically implemented after the policies have been implemented via the various parties. The GNSO can only really contemplate changes and make recommendations at a policy level. Rosette, Kristina wrote:

All,

Attached please find a draft statement of work for the Sunrise Working

Group.

Please circulate online any questions, comments, and/or suggestions. We will try to answer, incorporate, and/or organize before the Council

Meeting next week.

Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker, drafters