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

[Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We're just debating about questions that the WG might want to consider
as they deliberate, right?  This doesn't affect the actual scope or
deliverables in the charter, nor the expected work of the WG, it's
just something to think about on the way to fulfilling the actual
terms of the charter.

Personally, I don't love the language, either and think the whole
conversation is presupposing a lot about the substance of the WG's
output as opposed to framing the discussion, but I also think it's
silly to be wordsmithing a question that serves only as an input into
the working group's deliberations without limiting or expanding its
output in any way.

Having said all that, I'm sure if the drafting team rallied around a
particular set of language, Holly would be glad to incorporate it in
place of Chuck's.

Jordyn

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rosette, Kristina <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am troubled by the fact that this executive decision about wording was
> made barely 18 hours after the last call and well before the “23.59 UTC on
> Tuesday 2 July. “ set forth in Marika’s email.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:49 AM
>
>
> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Marika Konings
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>