hi Amr, this is great. i think this is a perfect example of terrific “pre-Saturday” conversation amongst the Councillors. back at you with a few replies. in general, i’m keen to do course-corrections early in the process to reduce the amount of “rework” the WG might otherwise have to do later. i’m especially keen to make sure that we do a good job of coordinating between the three working groups that may otherwise have gaps or collisions in their work. thanks! mikey On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Mikey,
I’ve included some preliminary thoughts on your comments in the documents attached, just as per my personal understanding of the ongoing discussions in the P&I WG. Brian and I are both Council liaisons to this WG, and I will be sure that all your comments are relayed to the full WG for further discussion and consideration.
Just to clarify, at this point, the “Principles” document is still (although almost complete) work-in-progress. The WG still needs to discuss it a bit more, and there are still suggestions for amendments being made. The principles are, however, meant to be broad in order to guide the future work of sub-teams still being formed, but not to get into too much detail in order to allow them the flexibility they will need to deliberate on the charter questions.
Regarding the “Working Definitions”, these are only meant to be used by the WG members in their internal discussions. They should help reduce confusion when more complex discussions start to take place, so that when a term is used, everybody understands to what it is referring. These definitions may change throughout the course of the WG as the WG members see fit.
Hope this helped a little.
Thanks.
Amr <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore - Mikey + Amr.doc> <PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey + Amr.doc>
On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
these look great. i marked them up with the questions that popped out at me as i read them. i was doing this mostly as notes to myself and intended to just bring these up on Saturday. but i’ve attached them to this reply in case time grows tight in Singapore. these are my reactions as an individual and have not been reviewed by the ISPCP.
great start!
mikey
<PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey.doc> <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore - Mikey.doc>
On Mar 14, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
On behalf of the Policy & Implementation Working Group I would like to share with you the working definitions and working principles (under final review) that the WG has developed to facilitate its deliberations on the charter questions. You are encouraged to share these with your respective groups and share any feedback you may have with the WG either during its update to the GNSO in Singapore or as part of its F2F meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 26 March from 15.30 – 17.00 SGT in room Sophia, please see http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-policy-implementation.
Best regards,
Marika <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore.doc><PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014.doc>
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.)