Re: [gnso-irtpc] Invitation to Participate in Survey on Working Group Guidelines
ahh. that's a great post. i like that #2 in your charter. that looks like a "drive a bus through that loophole" opportunity to me, but i resist the temptation to meddle (i know, pretty unusual). and you're also right -- saving the Titanic, only to have less-than-robust systems on board *is* a problem. so i'll pick up my pen again, now that i've survived my existential crisis. sorry all -- just a momentary aberration. thanks Avri for talking me out of the high branches (again). mikey On Mar 9, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > And yet, you volunteered to co-chair IRTP-D. A service postion I treasured > in this WG. > > I think the issue would be out of scope for the Standing Committee on > 'Improvements' (SCI). Our mandate is to: > > 1. review glitches that occur in the use of GNSO Operating procedure and > come up with recommendations for fixing them > 2. Periodically review the various GNSO processes overall for operational > well being. > > (3. Lately we have also gotten into a little bit of navel gazing trying to > update our own charter as well. I guess that is in any group's mandate.) > > The issue of why the trend toward ICANN BoardStaff capture* is beyond its > mandate (in my not so humble opinion as the SCI vice-chair) > > But yes, I can understand the image that in today's ICANN environment, this > poll may seem like arranging the chairs on Titanic. But assuming we can save > the Titanic in efforts elsewhere, we still need to have a WG methodology that > works and we need to make sure that people on WGs have the tools they need. > What use would it be to win the battle to preserve the bottom-up process but > to abandon that process in the effort. > > So thanks for filling out the questionnaire. > > avri > > * where it seems they want to forgo the PDP process and bring their own will > to bear on all policy decisions, including a new effort to eliminate all > picket fences what make Consensus PDPs even possible > > On 9 Mar 2013, at 08:40, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> hi Ron, >> >> i started filling out the survey and gently set my pen down. the short >> answer to all those questions is "yep, the Guidelines are fine, we reviewed >> them, our co-chairs followed them and all is good." >> >> but that survey, in the midst of all the recent events, highlighted a >> puzzler for me. the working-group process seems to be withering away -- >> Vertical Integration and more recently the TMCH Straw Man, Registry >> Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement cram-downs and the Policy vs >> Implementation debate all can be held up as examples of how the >> working-group process seems to be drifting out of the mainstream of the >> ICANN process. so this survey felt a little bit like rearranging the deck >> chairs on the Titanic. >> >> i think if the SCI wanted to dive into a broader issue, something like "the >> relevance and effectiveness of the PDP and Working Group processes in >> today's ICANN", they could perhaps do a great good. >> >> thanks, >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2013, at 7:20 AM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Dear IRTP-C Working Group members, >>> >>> As some of you may know, the GNSO Standing Committee on Implementation >>> Improvements (SCI) has developed a survey for GNSO Working Groups, as >>> requested by the GNSO Council, to solicit feedback on the GNSO Working >>> Group Guidelines. As Chair of the SCI, I am contacting your Working Group >>> to invite you to take the survey because you have recently completed your >>> work and, thus, may have valuable insight on the usefulness of the Working >>> Group Guidelines and suggestions for improvements. If you would like to >>> take the survey you may wish to review the Working Group Guidelines and >>> Summary first. Please see the following links to the documents and the >>> survey: >>> >>> Link to the Working Group Guidelines: >>> http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf >>> Link to the Guidelines Summary: >>> http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf >>> Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: >>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT >>> >>> The SCI appreciates your consideration of this request and we ask that if >>> you wish to complete the survey please do so by **Monday, 25 March 2013.** >>> >>> Thank you for your consideration. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> Chair, GNSO Standing Committee on Implementation Improvements >>> >>> >>> >>> Ronald N. Andruff >>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>> >> >> >> 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
|