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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

But it's on the agenda, and that's a step forward...

Wolf-Ulrich 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2010 17:54
An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing


Oh My,

So we aren't even an installed team yet.  No wonder we have not done anything 
yet.

a.

On 28 Sep 2010, at 11:42, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> surprising telepathy! Would be interesting to develop a DNS for such a 
> communication tool :-).
> 
> With regards to the question when this team should get started I might have a 
> slightly different view due to prioritization of council work. In this 
> respect a firm opinion of the OSC and PPSC would be helpful.
> 
> The team has not yet been officially installed by the council. To my 
> knowledge there are volunteers so far: Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett 
> (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), 
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP)
> 
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2010 17:03
> An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing
> 
> 
> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
> 
> It seems that we were having an improvement implementation moment almost 
> simultaneously and our email crossed paths.
> 
> I think I agree with you.  I think this team should get started.  And I 
> agree, this SC should not take on any issue that has not yet been approved by 
> the [O, PP] Steering Committee and approved by the Council.  But once the 
> council has approved a recommendation from either the OSC or the PPSC, it 
> should become this group's responsibility to review and deal with any issues.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 Sep 2010, at 10:47, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche 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
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>