ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing

  • To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing
  • From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:47:46 +0200

Hi Avri and Philip,

The topic will be - again - on the next council meeting agenda. According to 
the minutes item 8.3 of the last meeting OSC and PPSC shall be asked about 
their opinion how to proceed. I'd prefer having one team overseeing the whole 
implementation phase instead of different ones.

The OSC and its related subteams seem to be closer to fulfil their tasks than 
the PDP working team, so implementation could start regarding the OSC related 
recommendations. PPSC could follow later.

I'd be glad getting some inout for the next council meeting on 07 Oct.

Best regards

-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Montag, 20. September 2010 15:29
An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing


Well we are seeing some implementation related issues on the Council Operations 
WT already to do with SOI/DOI and Proxy voting.  So I was wondering does 
looking at those issue belong there, with the policy already having been 
approved, or here.  While the WT has not completed all its work while waiting 
on some issues related to revealing the staff contracting list, it had 
completed the SOI/DOI and Proxy stuff.


On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:19, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Hello Avri,
> I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion.
> First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams
> disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted.
> Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope 
> would
> come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would 
> seem
> to be duplication.
> Second,
> I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then
> finding issues with which this group could help.
> So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon.
> Philip

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy