FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. 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
All, A reminder here that the work of this group will be significantly focussed on the process rather than the substance. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 03 October 2014 00:45 To: 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Importance: High All, May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG. Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council. In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged. Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. Thank-you, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [ <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com> 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
All, May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG. Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council. In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged. Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. Thank-you, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [ <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com> 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 & Council: I'll step up to represent the RrSG. Thanks- J. From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3:25 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG. Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council. In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged. Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. Thank-you, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. 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
All, May I take the opportunity to please remind councillors that we need a total of 4 or 5 volunteers to support this effort. So far I believe we have: RrSG - James Bladel RySG - ? CSG - Susan Kawaguchi NCSG - ? Nom Com Appointee - Dan Reed I'd like to get names to Steve Crocker as soon as possible and also to agree the time for a face to face meeting in LA. Thanks, Jonathan From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: 03 October 2014 17:52 To: Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Importance: High Jonathan & Council: I'll step up to represent the RrSG. Thanks- J. From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3:25 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG. Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council. In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged. Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. Thank-you, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [ <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com> 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, I want to confirm the CSG has selected Susan Kawaguchi to serve on the working group. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 10/8/14 12:25 am To: council@gnso.icann.org All, May I take the opportunity to please remind councillors that we need a total of 4 or 5 volunteers to support this effort. So far I believe we have: RrSG - James Bladel RySG - ? CSG - Susan Kawaguchi NCSG - ? Nom Com Appointee - Dan Reed I'd like to get names to Steve Crocker as soon as possible and also to agree the time for a face to face meeting in LA. Thanks, Jonathan From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: 03 October 2014 17:52 To: Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Importance: High Jonathan & Council: I'll step up to represent the RrSG. Thanks- J. From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3:25 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG. Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council. In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged. Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. Thank-you, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. 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
Hi, And Avri Doria was selected to join this group by the NCSG. Rafik should be sending a notification to that effect. Thanks. Amr On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:35 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
Jonathan,
I want to confirm the CSG has selected Susan Kawaguchi to serve on the working group.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 10/8/14 12:25 am To: council@gnso.icann.org
All,
May I take the opportunity to please remind councillors that we need a total of 4 or 5 volunteers to support this effort.
So far I believe we have:
RrSG – James Bladel
RySG - ?
CSG - Susan Kawaguchi
NCSG - ?
Nom Com Appointee – Dan Reed
I’d like to get names to Steve Crocker as soon as possible and also to agree the time for a face to face meeting in LA.
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: 03 October 2014 17:52 To: Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Importance: High
Jonathan & Council:
I’ll step up to represent the RrSG.
Thanks—
J.
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3:25 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
All,
May I please ask you for names to undertake this task.
To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG.
Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council.
In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged.
Please may I have names asap. Today if possible.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
All,
Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker.
Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA.
Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP.
Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG.
Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit.
Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable.
Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated.
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
Thank-you both for the updates. Jonathan From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 09 October 2014 07:41 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Hi, And Avri Doria was selected to join this group by the NCSG. Rafik should be sending a notification to that effect. Thanks. Amr On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:35 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: Jonathan, I want to confirm the CSG has selected Susan Kawaguchi to serve on the working group. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 10/8/14 12:25 am To: council@gnso.icann.org All, May I take the opportunity to please remind councillors that we need a total of 4 or 5 volunteers to support this effort. So far I believe we have: RrSG - James Bladel RySG - ? CSG - Susan Kawaguchi NCSG - ? Nom Com Appointee - Dan Reed I'd like to get names to Steve Crocker as soon as possible and also to agree the time for a face to face meeting in LA. Thanks, Jonathan From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: 03 October 2014 17:52 To: Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Importance: High Jonathan & Council: I'll step up to represent the RrSG. Thanks- J. From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3:25 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG. Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council. In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged. Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. Thank-you, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [ <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com> 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
participants (4)
-
Amr Elsadr -
James M. Bladel -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson