Agree with Sam and Michael.
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Samantha Demetriou
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:22 AM
To: Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group
I think Michael’s suggestion is a good one. Assigning liaisons to this or other groups seems like it would be overly cumbersome and would result in creating more work with
little added value. To a point Jeff made (I think on a different iteration of this thread), I agree that we can continue to rely on WG participants to report back to their respective stakeholder groups and constituencies and keep them informed.
Responding to the RySG discussion group and letting them know exactly what areas the PDP WG would like input on would be a great way to streamline future communications and
help avoid duplicating work. Having people who participate in both the discussion group and the PDP WG will also help with this, and I know we have a handful of engaged folks already doing so. A further suggestion would be to include in our response a request
for the timeline on which the discussion group plans to cover the PDP WG’s topics of interest, to help the PDP WG leadership continue to keep this group’s schedules up to date.
Thanks,
Samantha
From:
<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 1:33 AM
To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group
I agree that these efforts can be done in parallel with one another and while there are objectives in common, the underlying objectives are different.
Rather than establishing liaisons to work between groups, it may help if we send a formal reply back to the RSP DG. Within the reply we could outline the relevant work tracks where specific developments of the RSP DG may feed into further
policy discussion within our group. I believe that would serve as a valid thank you and response.
Regards,
Michael Flemming
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote: