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

[David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That wording seems unclear to me. The GNSO council may state positions to the 
board on things other than policy or implementation (such as procedure, or 
anything the board asks it to weigh in on), and while the GNSO Council does 
strive for consensus where possible, it certainly sometimes does state a 
position quite explicitly not representing the GNSO as a whole (such as stating 
a majority council opinion but noting dissent of a particular constituency).  

David 
On 02/07/2013, at 11:11 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.)
>