It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time. Ray -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? thanks Avri and Julie, your posts are really helpful. what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind. one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. mikey On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that
need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have
wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but
it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not
agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the
Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)