Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

sorry to come in so late -- but i agree as well.  Chuck's points about the role 
of the Council are great, and i think this wording is much better.  

m

On Jul 1, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yes, that is much better.
> 
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:03 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Got it.  Thanks Tim.  Maybe we could word it something like this:  “Under 
>> what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council make recommendations or 
>> state positions to the Board as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?”
>>  
>> Chuck
>>  
>> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 6:56 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: Tim Ruiz; Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: For final review - proposed WG Charter
>>  
>> Got it. So what I meant was recommend - Under what circumstances, if any, 
>> may the GNSO recommend policy?" keeping in mind that it is policy in the 
>> general sense so may include but is not necessarily limited to Consensus 
>> Policy. At any rate, I do agree that we aren't missing anything if we delete 
>> the question altogether.
>>  
>> Tim
>>  
>> 
>> On Jul 1, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> I like that wording better Tim but I think the answer is still the same.  At 
>> the same time, maybe there is some value in the WG finding this out for 
>> themselves.
>>  
>> Chuck
>>  
>> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 6:48 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: For final review - proposed WG Charter
>>  
>> I am ok with both of those changes, but I wonder if the intent of the 4.c 
>> question was "Under what circumstances, if any, may the GNSO establish 
>> policy?" 
>>  
>> Tim
>> 
>> On Jul 1, 2013, at 6:41 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Marika for the quick delivery of these documents.  And thanks to 
>> everyone for the excellent work.
>>  
>> I think the proposed charter looks really good but I did come up with one 
>> possible issue and one minor edit.
>>  
>> Under ‘The WG may find the following questions helpful for completing the 
>> work:’ on page 3 of the clean version, where did question 4.c come from:  
>> “Under what circumstances, if any, may the GNSO Council establish policy?”  
>> It seems to me that we already know the answer to this: None.  The Bylaws 
>> are clear that the Council is a policy management body and not a policy 
>> making body.  It is the Council’s role to 1) manage PDPs, ensuring that 
>> applicable process is followed and that all impacted stakeholders have 
>> opportunity to contribute according to the GNSO WG Guidelines; 2) make 
>> recommendations to the Board regarding consensus policies and/or other 
>> policies or best practices.  The Bylaws make it clear that it is only the 
>> Board that may establish policy.  I see no usefulness in asking the WG to 
>> answer this question because the answer is already known, so I suggest 
>> deleting it.
>>  
>> I also think a minor edit is needed in Deliverable 4 on page 5 of the clean 
>> version: “WG conclusions with regard to how ICANN Core Values relate to 
>> policy and implementation efforts and whether the identified core values 
>> apply differently to policy development work than to implementation of 
>> policy”
>>  
>> Chuck
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
>> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:32 PM
>> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>>  
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> Please find attached for final review the latest version of the WG Charter 
>> which includes the edits discussed today. To facilitate your review, you'll 
>> find attached a clean as well as a redline version. 
>>  
>> Please share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list at the 
>> latest by 23.59 UTC on Tuesday 2 July. 
>>  
>> Based on the feedback received at that point, we'll decide whether or not to 
>> go ahead with the meeting on Wednesday 3 July at 19.00 UTC.
>>  
>> The proposed motion will follow tomorrow.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Marika


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