Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: [council] Message from Policy & Implementation WG

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck, and thanks for clarifying the “picket fence” issue. Should we 
then, reconsider including it as a working definition?

Regarding “Policy Advice”, I seem to remember things a bit differently. I 
wouldn’t be surprised if I am confused, though. If I’m not mistaken though, the 
process for submitting advice without a PDP is what we need to work out in 
“Policy Guidance”.

If I confused the two, I apologise.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Your responses were excellent in my opinion Amr.  I very much appreciate you 
> taking the time to enter into dialog with Mikey.  I inserted two comments in 
> response to your comments in the attached version of the definitions. Please 
> let me know if they make sense and are accurate.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:18 PM
> To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: [council] Message from Policy & 
> Implementation WG
>  
> Hi Chuck and all,
>  
> You’ll find my responses to Mikey attached to this email. I’ve also included 
> a third file with some responses from Mikey to the comments I sent him on the 
> principles document. I hope I’ve helped out a little and not mucked things up 
> for the rest of the group!! :)
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Amr
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> 
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Message from Policy & Implementation WG
> Date: March 16, 2014 at 5:20:03 PM GMT+1
> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-chairs@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <gnso-policyimpl-chairs@xxxxxxxxx>, ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
>  
> Hi Mikey,
>  
> I’ve included some preliminary thoughts on your comments in the documents 
> attached, just as per my personal understanding of the ongoing discussions in 
> the P&I WG. Brian and I are both Council liaisons to this WG, and I will be 
> sure that all your comments are relayed to the full WG for further discussion 
> and consideration.
>  
> Just to clarify, at this point, the “Principles” document is still (although 
> almost complete) work-in-progress. The WG still needs to discuss it a bit 
> more, and there are still suggestions for amendments being made. The 
> principles are, however, meant to be broad in order to guide the future work 
> of sub-teams still being formed, but not to get into too much detail in order 
> to allow them the flexibility they will need to deliberate on the charter 
> questions.
>  
> Regarding the “Working Definitions”, these are only meant to be used by the 
> WG members in their internal discussions. They should help reduce confusion 
> when more complex discussions start to take place, so that when a term is 
> used, everybody understands to what it is referring. These definitions may 
> change throughout the course of the WG as the WG members see fit.
>  
> Hope this helped a little.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Amr
>  
>  
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> hi all,
>  
> these look great.  i marked them up with the questions that popped out at me 
> as i read them.  i was doing this mostly as notes to myself and intended to 
> just bring these up on Saturday.  but i’ve attached them to this reply in 
> case time grows tight in Singapore.  these are my reactions as an individual 
> and have not been reviewed by the ISPCP.
>  
> great start!  
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> <PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey.doc>
> <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore - Mikey.doc>
>  
>  
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear All,
>  
> On behalf of the Policy & Implementation Working Group I would like to share 
> with you the working definitions and working principles (under final review) 
> that the WG has developed to facilitate its deliberations on the charter 
> questions. You are encouraged to share these with your respective groups and 
> share any feedback you may have with the WG either during its update to the 
> GNSO in Singapore or as part of its F2F meeting which has been scheduled for 
> Wednesday 26 March from 15.30 – 17.00 SGT in room Sophia, please see 
> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-policy-implementation. 
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Marika
> <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore.doc><PI Proposed Working 
> Definitions - 19 February 2014.doc>
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  
>  
>  
> <PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey + Amr + Chuck.doc>