ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


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

Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] PDP Timelines - milestone dates

  • To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] PDP Timelines - milestone dates
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:37:08 -0700

Just an idea, but would requiring a status update by Seoul, in the same fashion 
as the RAP WG has recently provided (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06896.html) address 
this need?

Best regards,

Marika


On 6/3/09 6:18 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



I agree and strongly support Tim's desire for
some sort of substantive update/discussion in Seoul.  Alan

At 28/05/2009 10:38 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>Thanks Marika. Seems to make sense. But as I said, we should strive to
>have some concrete ideas on solutions for a follow up Workshop in Korea
>(call it an interim report or whatever you want).
>
>Tim
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] PDP Timelines - milestone dates
>From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Thu, May 28, 2009 5:56 am
>To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
><gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Dear All,
>
>As requested, please find attached an overview of PDP timelines as
>discussed on yesterday’s call. Based on the data from previous PDPs, I
>have included some suggested milestone dates for the PEDNR for your
>review. Do note that most of the past WGs would meet on a weekly basis,
>which might not be the case for the PEDNR WG and is likely to affect the
>timeline.
>
>A wiki page is being created and I will notify you as soon as it is up
>and running.
>
>With regard to the workshop, please note that a preliminary announcement
>has already been posted on the Sydney web site (see
>http://syd.icann.org/node/3869).
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>On 5/27/09 9:52 PM, "Avri Doria"
><https://email.secureserver.net/avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>I sort of acted like a chair for the meeting.
>
>1. Reviewed charter proposed by Tim
>       - further discussion and review needed
>       - charter to be put in wiki (don't know who is doing this, i
>will if no one does it by the time i look for it next)
>       - goal is to have it on agenda for  24 June.  Needs to be
>complete by 10 June.
>
>2. Charter needs to include milestones.  Marika to help build a
>reasonable first approximation based on Policy Staff aggregate
>experience in the evolving GNSO WG experience to date.
>
>3. We need to have a report of some sort out for Seoul.
>
>      - it can be a preliminary report - little more then restatements
>of the issues report + issues that came up in public comment and a
>compendium of constituency reports.
>
>      - It can be the initial report (i do not think there is a precise
>definition of what needs to be in an initial report.  In my time I
>have seen initial reports that were like preliminary report.   I have
>also seen initial reports that looked like a draft initial report.
>this groups needs to figure out what it needs to do to cover the
>subject mater.
>
>    - it can be something in between the first two alternatives.
>
>      Note, the by-laws require a constituency and public comment
>period.  They do not limit it to one.
>
>4. An announcement of the workshop in Sydney should go out soon and
>should include information about the WG that is being formed.  work
>was still needed on organizing the workshop.   A wiki page would be
>built for collaborate effort's sake, though covnersations are also
>encouraged on the list on directly with Marika.
>
>5. We had initial conversations on role:
>
>     - it looked like Tim was a good candidate for Council liaison
>    -  it looked like Alan was a good candidate for interim chair, with
>a regular chair being selected after the group was fully formed.  I
>asked Alan to take on the interim role immediately and there were not
>objections
>
>
>6.  There was mixed opinion on:
>       - the use of milestone dates as a forcing function
>       - whether tools beyond email, teleconference and f2f meeting
>should be used.
>       - whether the use of tools other then the base needed to be
>mandated in a charter.
>
>
>a.






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