ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc]


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

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?

  • To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:54:28 -0500

hi Julie,

yep -- that's what i'm thinking too.  otherwise i can imagine this "project 
close out" committee going on forever.  going on forever is fine if we're 
transforming into a standing rules committee, but not consistent with the 
direction i'm picking up from the posts in this thread.  

m

On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Mickey,
> 
> I'll defer to the SCI members concerning a "sunset" clause, but I'll point
> out that as Avri noted (and I think Marika also pointed out) the SCI is to
> undertake periodic process reviews on those processes that were initiated
> in the GNSO improvements process.  The charter says, "On a periodic
> timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues
> and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which
> recommendations should be reviewed)."  Those reviews have not occurred nor
> have they been defined.  It may be that language needs to be included that
> sets a specific timeframe for these process reviews.
> 
> Best regards,
> Julie
> 
> On 6/7/13 4:16 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> thanks Avri and Julie,
>> 
>> your posts are really helpful.
>> 
>> what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original
>> intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of
>> the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the
>> GNSO or the PDP.  that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i
>> think some of the edits may have missed this mark.  i'll churn through
>> the draft with this in mind.
>> 
>> one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset"
>> language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done?  it may be
>> that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is
>> because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> To add.  I approached it as a clean-up.  There were some anachronisms
>>> that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
>>> 
>>> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might
>>> have wanted to go beyond clean-up.
>>> 
>>> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function,
>>> but it is hard to be sure.  Certainly not one of my goals.
>>> 
>>> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do
>>> not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work.  Except for the
>>> periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the
>>> rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered
>>> working groups.
>>> 
>>> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> newbie question here.  i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
>>>> because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list
>>>> right now.
>>>> 
>>>> here's my question:  what are we hoping to achieve with the change in
>>>> the Charter?
>>>> 
>>>> possible answers -- we're trying to:
>>>> 
>>>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
>>>> accomplish the following goals
>>>> 
>>>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
>>>> accomplish the following goals
>>>> 
>>>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
>>>> 
>>>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
>>>> 
>>>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
>>>> than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> mikey
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>>>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy