RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed Recommendation and FAQ, v1

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg,

Thanks ever so much for this great post.   Sorry about the sluggish 
reply -- it's partly due to personal schedule, and partly because it 
took me a while to write some longer posts to reply to a couple of 
the nifty issues you raise.
So this is the "short" reply -- where I accept some of your points as 
good corrections to the draft.  See below.
There are a couple more posts that will I will post at the same time, 
that kick off new threads.  One is kicking off a "re-engineering" 
thread, the other is a "chartering" thread.  Those are longer posts 
that I could use some feedback on.
At 04:36 PM 8/11/2008, you wrote:

> Dear Mike:
>
> A few notes below.  Friday's meeting was sparsely attended, and everyone
> needs a clear view of what is being proposed here.
>
> * I agree that the group seems to lack consensus on many points -- but that
> is a potential outcome in any WG, and does not invalidate a WG's charter.
See the "chartering" thread/post for this reply.


> * A revised charter can be a good idea -- but I don't support a plan that
> will chuck the work done to date.  The WG has an obligation to report what
> it has done and learned -- and if we don't have all the problems defined and
> solutions yet, that's OK to say.  The 10 questions are not without merit.
> Constituency statements, and minority opinions, are also to be reflected in
> a WG's product.  We should not slip our obligations to put the work and
> opinions on the record, and just change the goalposts instead.
I agree.  I view this public email archive as a huge resource for 
people to mine for ideas, thoughts, etc.    What I quail at is 
arriving at a consensus view that we could take forward to the 
Constituency Review process within our time-budget.
So can we agree put the current state of opinion on record (for 
example, the Registry input), but focus our *recommendation* on a 
positive next step?

> * It is critical that any new charter stay within ICANN's purview.
Agreed.  I'll reread the draft and find places where that can be 
sharpened up.

> * A charter should not presuppose any conclusions.  It should reference work
> already done and could list possible ideas within ICANN's purview that could
> be further explored without passing judgment on them.
Correct again.  I'll look for instances of that mistake.  If you have 
any specific ones, I am all ears.

> * Your draft document assumes some outcomes.  It should not.  For example,
> there is no agreement whatsoever that "the solutions that are ultimately
> proposed will include a mix of information sharing, technical systems,
> process changes and/or policy changes."
Agreed -- I got a little too affirmative.  I was trying to highlight 
the idea that solutions could be broader than just technical or 
policy.  Here's a proposed revision --  "proposals could include 
various solutions such as information sharing, technical systems, 
process changes and/or policy changes."

> * The following strike me as beyond the charter of the present WG, and of a
> future one too:
> - "Develop a high-level design of preferred solutions -- including roles,
> responsibilities, obligations, tools, metrics and goals.  To restate, we
> envision a variety of options will be proposed. We recommend that this
> analysis be applied to technical and non-technical solution-proposals."
> - "Design and build -- Develop the tools and techniques needed to deliver
> the solutions -- including contracts, targets, systems, policies, processes,
> training/education materials, and an approach to outreach."  This gets into
> implementation, which should mostly be deferred.  Feasibility of
> implementation needs to be considered because recommending a solution or
> solutions that are unfeasible would be a waste of time.
>
> It might be more appropriate to say: "Develop a high-level list of possible
> solutions that could be explored -- including roles, responsibilities,
> obligations, tools, metrics, and goals.  It is anticipated that a variety of
> possible solutions would be proposed. We recommend that both technical and
> non-technical proposals be explored to the extent they are within ICANN's
> mission."
I'm fine with your language.  I'll substitute it in the draft.


> * It's beyond scope of this WG to figure out how to re-engineer ICANN
> processes, which is what you're getting into below.
Great point.  See my longer post -- "re-engineering."  The summation 
is that I'm keen on the topic, but not insistent on that approach.

> All best,
> --Greg
Thank you Greg!

m