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

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

A practical point to keep in mind regarding participating in multiple sub-teams 
is that it makes it harder for scheduling and also increases the likelihood of 
individuals not being able to devote enough time to each task.  My personal 
recommendation would be that each of us join only one sub-team.  We will all 
have the opportunity to weigh in once the sub-teams finish their work.

Chuck

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:38 PM
To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: Draft call for sub-team volunteers message

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Sub-team IV: Draft Guidance on the formation and function of GNSO 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<mailto: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> 
[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