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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I would pretty much go along with this, with the caveat that quick short 
term teams can be spun out anytime there was, to use Mikey's terminology 
- I think, a nut to chew on.  I.e we find a few people attacking the 
same problem in a different way, time for a team to resolved the 
differences.  Or something like that.
Sorry I have been absent for 3 weeks, between various Ig meetings and 
writing and the IETF I had my hands full.  Hopefully my apologies got 
conveyed.
avri


On 12-Mar-14 12:50, Tom Barrett 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
> <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/*