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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri makes a good point about limiting participation; we were upset with the 
IDNC limitations so we have the opportunity to demonstrate more openness now.

I would avoid saying "at least one" because that means a minimum of one; if a 
group refuses to provide one, then we would not meet the requirements.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:35 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> 
> 
> The idea for limiting participation for the IDNC was, I 
> think, to contain the discussion.  It sounds reasonable for 
> the IDNG to be more open.  How about:
> 
> - Members of the GNSO and the GNSO Council;
> - Members of the GAC;
> - Members of the ccNSO;
> - Members of the At-Large and ALAC;
> - At least one (1) representative from the technical community;
> - At least one (1) member of the SSAC; and,
> - And two (2) ICANN staff members.
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> > Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:11 AM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>