Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: Draft call for sub-team volunteers message

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I don’t know if it’s just me, but the language originally used to describe the 
tasks of each sub-team in the original spreadsheet prepared by the Workplan 
sub-team made the distinctions between each one of them easier to identify. 
They read as follows:

Sub-team I: Propose process for developing gTLD and other ICANN policy in the 
form of GNSO "Policy Development Process" and "Policy Guidance" and propose 
criteria for determining when each would be appropriate.

Sub-team II - III: Develop criteria to be used to determine when a particular 
action should be addressed by a Policy Development or Guidance process and when 
it should be considered Implementation and develop framework for discussion of 
Implementation Options associated with GNSO Policy Recommendations.

Sub-team IV: Draft Guidance on the formation and function of GNSO 
Implementation Review Teams and their relation to GNSO Policy Recommendations 
and Implementation programs.

I don’t doubt that there will need to be overlap, and we discussed early on how 
work progress in each of the sub-teams would very likely be iterative based on 
the work of others. Having said that, it is my personal feeling that the full 
WG calls have done a pretty good job of getting detailed feedback from WG 
participants outside of sub-teams. This email list could probably also serve 
that same purpose.

Still…, I plan on joining all three sub-teams and honestly don’t relish the 
thought of working on all of them simultaneously, just because of the time I 
will need to commit to them. :)

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 12, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Tom Barrett <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Chuck,
>  
> My sense is that there is a lot of overlap between these three sub-teams.   
> This will lead to a lot of wasted discussion within each team about whether 
> an issue is within the scope of sub-team a or b  or c.
>  
> I think it would be more productive to simply attack these question with a 
> single team.
>  
> Best regards
>  
>  
>  
> Thomas Barrett
> EnCirca, Inc.  – President
> 400 West Cummings Park, #1725
> Woburn, MA US 01801
> +1.781.942.9975 ext: 11
> +1.781.823.8911 (fax)
> +1.781.492.1315 (cell)
>  
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:03 PM
> To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: Draft call for sub-team volunteers message
> Importance: High
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Now that the working definitions and working principles have (nearly) 
> completed their work, it is time to start looking ahead and focus on the next 
> stage of our work plan. As you may recall, it was proposed that the next 
> phase of work would focus on the charter questions by forming three sub-teams 
> that would work in parallel in deliberating and developing initial 
> recommendations for the full WG to review. To refresh your memories about the 
> task and expected deliveries for each of these sub-teams, please find an 
> overview attached. 
>  
> In order to determine whether this approach is still viable and the most 
> efficient way for the WG to make headway on the charter questions, you are 
> invited to indicate your interest to volunteer for one or more of these 
> sub-teams. We have observed a recent drop in attendance of the WG meetings, 
> but we are hoping this is due to the pre-ICANN meeting workload and not a 
> sign of reduced interest. Please note that it is the expectation that each 
> sub-team would at a minimum meet every two weeks (in addition to the full WG 
> meeting every two weeks). The WG is expected to review the feedback received 
> and composition of sub-teams at its F2F meeting in Singapore to decide how to 
> proceed. 
>  
> Please indicate off-list to Marika (marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx), which sub-team 
> you would like to volunteer for:
> Sub team I (Develop criteria to determine when an issue, once identified as 
> "policy", may be appropriately addressed outside a formal PDP (e.g. Through 
> Policy Guidance) & Develop a process for addressing such issues outside the 
> formal PDP)
> Sub Team II – III (Develop criteria to determine when an action should be 
> addressed through a policy process (whether through a PDP or as Policy 
> Guidance) and when it should be considered implementation & Develop a 
> framework for discussing implementation issues associated with GNSO policy 
> recommendations)
> Sub-Team IV (Develop more explicit guidelines as to how GNSO Implementation 
> Review Teams (as defined in the GNSO PDP Manual) should function and operate)
> Thanks,
>  
> Chuck & J. Scott