RE: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter
I suggest that the first bullet point under Working Group Processes be modified as follows (inserted the second sentence, the rest is the same): The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Thu, July 10, 2008 12:15 pm To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> On 10 Jul 2008, at 17:42, Olof Nordling wrote:
Avri, Chuck, all, Starting with Chuck's item 2 - I fully agree that it's a real squeeze. Let's recall that the PDP rules set out 15 days for this (constituency statements due at T+35 and Initial Report due at T+50) and even that isn't easy, although doable (based on experience;-).
makes sense, especially since that is still the by-laws timing.
Then, recalling what we did for the IDN WG, we used the term Outcomes Report (in drafts 1 to n until we got consensus, then calling it "final", or rather skipping the prefix "draft" - this in order to save the expression Final Report to something endorsed by the Council.
I have long thought of Final report as name required by the by-laws for the document that is produced after the constituency reports and before the deliberations, and not an indicator of ordinality. In any case I have modified the milestones to try and take care of these issues.
Just my two Euro-cents on this for now.
I await further euros.
Best regards
thanks, a.
Tim's change seems fine to me. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:36 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter
I suggest that the first bullet point under Working Group Processes be modified as follows (inserted the second sentence, the rest is the same):
The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Thu, July 10, 2008 12:15 pm To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
On 10 Jul 2008, at 17:42, Olof Nordling wrote:
Avri, Chuck, all, Starting with Chuck's item 2 - I fully agree that it's a real squeeze. Let's recall that the PDP rules set out 15 days for this (constituency statements due at T+35 and Initial Report due at T+50) and even that isn't easy, although doable (based on experience;-).
makes sense, especially since that is still the by-laws timing.
Then, recalling what we did for the IDN WG, we used the
term Outcomes
Report (in drafts 1 to n until we got consensus, then calling it "final", or rather skipping the prefix "draft" - this in order to save the expression Final Report to something endorsed by the Council.
I have long thought of Final report as name required by the by-laws for the document that is produced after the constituency reports and before the deliberations, and not an indicator of ordinality.
In any case I have modified the milestones to try and take care of these issues.
Just my two Euro-cents on this for now.
I await further euros.
Best regards
thanks,
a.
Hi, I have made the change suggested by Tim to that charter which can be found in the workspace or at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?irtp_pdp_a_wg_charter Also, in order to cover the issue raised by Chuck about when this work needs to start I modified the motion which can be cfund in workspace or at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? 17_july_2008_motions to read: 17 July 2008 Motions Item 7 --- Motion: Avri Doria Second: Whereas On 25 June 2008 the GNSO council initiated PDP IRTP Part A to be refered to as IRTP PDP Jun08 and, decided to create an PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP and, has reviewed the charter found at [IRTP PDP-A WG Charter] Resolved The GSNO Council approves the charter and associated time lines and appoints insert name here as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG. The GNSO council further directs that the work of the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. --- Note: we still need to pick a Council Liaison for the WG and as far as I know, no one has yet indicated willingness. thanks a.
Please note that the draft motion for IRTP Part A PDP WG asks for us to identify a Council liaison who would serve as interim chair until a chair is selected. It would be very helpful if, before our meeting on Thursday, we were able to identify someone on the Council who is willing to fill this role. Any volunteers? Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:42 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft charter for IRTP Part A PDP WG charter
Hi,
I have made the change suggested by Tim to that charter which can be found in the workspace or at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?irtp_pdp_a_wg_charter
Also, in order to cover the issue raised by Chuck about when this work needs to start I modified the motion which can be cfund in workspace or at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? 17_july_2008_motions to read:
17 July 2008 Motions Item 7 ---
Motion: Avri Doria Second:
Whereas
On 25 June 2008 the GNSO council initiated PDP IRTP Part A to be refered to as IRTP PDP Jun08
and, decided to create an PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP
and, has reviewed the charter found at [IRTP PDP-A WG Charter]
Resolved
The GSNO Council approves the charter and associated time lines and appoints insert name here as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG. The GNSO council further directs that the work of the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
---
Note: we still need to pick a Council Liaison for the WG and as far as I know, no one has yet indicated willingness.
thanks
a.
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Tim Ruiz