RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am not really presuming to suggest ow the GAc particpate, just giving
my guess at how they might participate if the WG is formed, we invite
them to do so and they endorse the idea by agreeing to participate at
all.  It is also possible that they would decline to particpate and one
or more would participate in their personal capacity.

Another question I have is why do we wish to limit participation.  I
know others have and continue to do so (e.g. the ccNSO ivitation for 2
GNSO members to participate in their PDP process), but does it fit with
the open philosophy the GNSO has been taking in most activities?

a.


On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 23:27 +0800, Edmon Chung wrote:
> That seems to be a good suggestion.
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:08 PM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > a manner of interaction they seem have used of late is that one or two,
> > normally the chair or v-chairs participate as gateways to the rest of
> > the GAC, forwarding messages in both directions.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 08:29 +0800, Edmon Chung wrote:
> > > That is the suggestion...
> > > Any number of GNSO Councillors and constituency members in fact.
> > > And yes, any members of the GAC... the learning from the interaction at 
> > > the
> > > IDNC is that it makes it very difficult for the GAC to "select" people 
> > > into
> > > a WG.
> > > Edmon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:17 AM
> > > > To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Edmon,
> > > >
> > > > I'm fine with your approach. On the membership, are you suggesting that
> > > any
> > > > number of GNSO Council members or GAC members be allowed in the WG?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Stéphane
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le 17/04/09 12:03, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With a potential (1) Purpose and (2) Scope drafted, would like to
> > > consider 2
> > > > > more things
> > > > > 3. Process for the development of feasible methods for fast track
> > > approach
> > > > > 4. Membership of the IDNG Working Group
> > > > >
> > > > > Learning from the IDNC WG, I think we can produce 2 reports (instead 
> > > > > of
> > > 3 --
> > > > > the IDNC Interim/Proposed Methodology and Final Report were similar).
> > > > > Thereupon, a finalized "Final Report" could be presented for adoption 
> > > > > by
> > > GNSO
> > > > > Council and the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, for 3. Process, adjusting from the IDNC WG, the IDNG WG would
> > > produce 2
> > > > > reports:
> > > > > - IDNG Initial Report
> > > > > - IDNG Final Report
> > > > > Each should include a public comment period.
> > > > >
> > > > > - IDNG Initial Report
> > > > > This would be a stock taking document identifying all the issues that
> > > needs to
> > > > > be taken into consideration (such as those raised by Stéphane and
> > > others),
> > > > > along with some possible options/principles for implementing an IDN 
> > > > > gTLD
> > > Fast
> > > > > Track.
> > > > >
> > > > > - IDNG Final Report
> > > > > The Final Report should review and analyze the comments received from
> > > the
> > > > > public comment period, and develop a set of principles and procedural
> > > > > framework for implementing an IDN gTLD Fast Track. The Final Report
> > > should
> > > > > also take into consideration the then current drafts for IDN ccTLD 
> > > > > Fast
> > > Track
> > > > > Implementation Draft and the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook to provide
> > > specific
> > > > > directives implementable by staff.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As for 4. Membership of the IDNG WG, a possible composition may be as
> > > follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Members of the GNSO and the GNSO Council;
> > > > > Members of the GAC;
> > > > > Two (2) members of the ccNSO;
> > > > > Two (2) members of the At-Large and/or the ALAC;
> > > > > One (1) representative of technical community;
> > > > > One (1) member of the SSAC: and
> > > > > Two (2) ICANN staff members.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Edmon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>