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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That’s a good point. And like I said, I think this WG has already done a pretty 
good job at collectively reviewing and giving feedback to work done by 
sub-teams so far.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 12, 2014, at 6:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 Sub-team IV: Draft Guidance on the formation and function of GNSO 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