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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We need to keep in mind that our first sub-team worked diligently to develop a 
work plan and they recommended the three teams work in parallel, so for now I 
think we need to respect their work and move forward rather than undoing what 
they did unless we discover information that they were not aware of.  The full 
WG approved the work plan.

Chuck

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:41 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: Draft call for sub-team volunteers message

Hey Chuck,

I sent the email in response to Tom's before reading this one saying that I 
thought the opposite was true. I personally feel the rewording has made it 
slightly more confusing. :)

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 12, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Gomes, Chuck 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


I thought that at first too Tom so the chairs and vice chairs along with Marika 
and Mary discussed it and reworded the main descriptions to better reflect the 
differences.  There of course will be some overlap in everything we do, but I 
personally think they are different enough that we can gain time by having all 
three happen in parallel.  And of course they can collaborate if they need to.  
Assuming I am correct, the key right now is to get enough volunteers for all 
three groups.

Chuck

From: Tom Barrett [mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:50 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: Draft call for sub-team volunteers message

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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:03 PM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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