ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-policyimpl-dt]


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

Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Recap of meeting & items for review

  • To: "gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Recap of meeting & items for review
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:39:02 -0500

hi Tim,

the reason i threw that question about GNSO-only is because some of the issues 
that are being raised, for which "policy vs implementation" decisions need to 
be made, are coming from outside the GNSO.  a couple examples come to mind -- 
SAC45 from the SSAC and the GAC Advice from Beijing.  i would think both of 
those would in a perfect world get run through the policy vs. implementation 
decision making process.  i'm fine developing a charter for a GNSO working 
group, but maybe we at least ought to write into the charter a recommendation 
that the WG make a concentrated effort to recruit reps from the other AC/SOs 
for their work. 

good catch on my "problems to be solved" wording.  let me clarify.  i mean 
those as the puzzles that the WG has to solve, not us.  i'm hoping to see a 
list that looks something like that in the Mission part of the charter.

thanks,

mikey


On Jun 15, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We are a GNSO DT, not a cross SO DT (thank God), so we should consider that 
> what we do applies only to the GNSO WG that follows.
> 
> Regarding your problems to be solved, are those problems that you feel we 
> need to solve or that the WG that follows needs to solve? We are only tasked 
> with drafting the charter.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 12:20 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> great discussion so far.  here's my contribution.
>> 
>> i took the liberty of redrawing Marika's diagram.  no, this is *not* going 
>> in the charter, it's just a thought exercise to help me frame my charter 
>> questions, but i thought it might be useful for the discussion we're having. 
>>  what follows are some ideas and questions for our charter that fell out of 
>> that exercise.  i've left a lot of them out because Jordyn and Chuck got off 
>> the mark a little quicker than i did and covered much of what i was thinking 
>> about. 
>> 
>> Mission
>> 
>> Problems to be solved:  
>> 
>> - Define the mechanism by which "policy vs implementation" questions are 
>> identified 
>> - during implementation efforts
>> - prior to implementation
>> - Define the criteria used to determine the difference between policy and 
>> implementation issues
>> - Define the options available for policy and implementation efforts and 
>> criteria for determining which should be used
>> - Define who makes those determinations and how
>> - Define who reviews and approves those decisions and how
>> - Describe the process by which this identification, analysis, review and 
>> approval work is done
>> 
>> 
>> Scope
>> 
>> - The work of this group
>> Choice a) only applies to the GNSO?
>> Choice b) applies to all ICANN AC/SOs?
>> 
>> - If the choice is "all AC/SOs" does this fall into the cross-constituency 
>> WG arena?  do different chartering/operating rules apply to the WG?
>> 
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <Policy vs Implementation v2.pdf>
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:00 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much for joining the first meeting of the Policy & 
>>> Implementation Drafting Team. As a short recap of the meeting and follow up 
>>> on action items:
>>> For those of you that were not able to attend the first meeting, please 
>>> feel free to share a few words of introduction with the mailing list.
>>> Holly Raiche has volunteered to serve as a the Chair for this Drafting Team 
>>> and has received the support of those that were on the call. If there are 
>>> any other candidates that would like to be considered for this post, or any 
>>> statements of support / objections, please share those with the mailing 
>>> list ahead of the next meeting. 
>>> As discussed, please find attached a first draft of the charter template, 
>>> following the model of other charters as well as the information contained 
>>> in the call for volunteers. You are encouraged to share your comments 
>>> and/or edits with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting.
>>> For those interested to review some other recent GNSO charters, please see: 
>>> 'thick' Whois PDP WG Charter (https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag),  
>>> IGO/INGO PDP WG Charter (https://community.icann.org/x/I4NEAg), Whois 
>>> Survey Working Group (https://community.icann.org/x/xwS5AQ). Do note that 
>>> the first two are Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Groups which 
>>> means that the charter may include elements that are specific to PDP 
>>> Working Groups.
>>> Attached you will the notes I took during the policy & implementation 
>>> session in Beijing. To review the full transcript or recording, please see 
>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133. 
>>> The next meeting has been scheduled for Monday 17 June at 19.00 UTC for 90 
>>> minutes.
>>> 
>>> With best regards,
>>> 
>>> Marika
>>> <Policy & Implementation WG - Charter Template - 11 June 2013.doc><Policy 
>>> and Implementation Panel Beijing 10 April 2013 - Notes.doc>
>> 
>> 
>> 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