Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] PDP Timelines - milestone dates
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 yesterdayâ€™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.