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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Per Holly's email, please find attached an updated version of the charter,
incorporating the edits as proposed by Holly as well as a revised motion for
your review. Please use these versions for any further edits / comments you
may have.

Thanks,

Marika

From:  Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Tuesday 2 July 2013 16:49
To:  "gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:  Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

Hi Everyone 

In the interests of my sleep, I am making an executive decision to adopt
Chuck's wording of question 4 (based on the reasoning that has been
expressed), as follows:
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?

The other suggestion I will accept is the suggestion to amend the motion
(made by Chuck) giving a time line of 7 days for a response.

Marika - would you please make those two changes.

That done, we still do not need the next call (and I can sleep)

Thanks

Holly



On 02/07/2013, at 10:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> The reason I added the last qualification is because of what Mikey said in his
> response to my suggested wording:  The Board is in the habit of asking the
> GNSO Council for advice with a short deadline and then treating it as a
> broader GNSO position.  I think that is inappropriate on the part of the Board
> but the reality is that it happens.
> 
> At the same, time I wouldn't object if that qualifier was deleted as Wolf
> suggests.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:05 AM
> To: Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Marika Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> 
> 
> Good morning!
> 
> I'm fine with Chuck's rewording except for the last part "... as a
> representative of the GNSO as a whole?".
> 
> I'm convinced that a discussion about the role of the council vs (and of) the
> GNSO is necessary and urgent but I wonder whether this debate may overload the
> WG mandate.
> It should definitely be discussed during the coming GNSO review.
> 
> My suggestion to question 4: "Under what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO
> Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board?"
> 
> Nevertheless I would join any wording which makes early mornings in Down Under
> more convenient :-)
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Holly Raiche
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 8:50 AM
> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Marika Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> 
> Folks
> 
> If there is one thing I do NOT want to do, it is have another 5.00am meeting
> in two days time (particularly since I have a 1.00am call that morning!)
> 
> SOOooo
> 
> From what I have gathered from the emails, there are really only two changes
> to the charter that Marika sent out (and thank you Marika for the very quick
> turn around)
> 
> The first is really wording - first spotted by Eduardo and then cleaned up a
> bit
> 
> The other was question 4 - and from the emails, I think people are happy to go
> with ChucK's rewording of it.
> 
> I have incorporated those changes only into a clean copy - and what I want
> from everyone is either confirmation that this is what can go forward, or not
> (and if not, please, what do you want changed - with proposed wording - and
> why)  Otherwise, if I don't hear from you, this is what we proceed with
> 
> And thank you one and all for your time, diligence and patience
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Attachment: Motion to adopt the charter - updated 2 July 2013 .doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: Policy Implementation WG - Charter redline - updated 2 July 2013.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature