Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Proposed Working Group Team Charter

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I don¹t think that at this stage we should be talking about a project
charter ­ we are mainly and should to this end be focusing on a minimum
standard of objectives and goals that the WG should adhere to. I personally
find it, especially at this early stage, rather worrying to draft specific
and project-management rules for the WG teams especially in light of the
fact that we are still quite uncertain as to what our role and procedures
are. Remember that this is part of the new GNSO plan and the nature and core
of the WG teams is still to be determined by the teams themselves.

With appreciation,

Konstantinos


On 24/01/2009 00:46, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mike:
>  
> No warring on my part.  I am happy to consider any alternative document you'd
> like to put forward.  I have put forward a draft that I think is fine for our
> purposes.  You seem to disagree.  I can respect that we have a difference of
> opinion.  IMHO, a difference of opinion adds robustness and diversity to the
> discussion and usually leads to more informed and better work product.
> Accordingly, I invite you to put forth a document that you feel accomplishes
> what you believe is needed in a proper charter for consideration by this list,
> the PPSC and the eventual fully constituted WG team.
>  
> Cheers!
>  
> j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark | Yahoo! Inc.
> | evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385
> 
> 
> 
> From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Working Group <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:16:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Proposed Working Group Team Charter
> 
> 
> i am too happily on vacation to go to war over this, but the document you're
> circulating isn't a charter in my opinion.
> 
> you use the term "charter concepts" in the second paragraph, and i think all
> would be resolved if you re-titled your memo that way.  i'm happy to see
> charter concepts explored and commend the work you're doing.
> 
> but let's not call this document a charter yet -- it's missing most of the
> information that's generally considered mandatory in a project charter (hence
> my forwarding the link to the little checklist).  this lack of completeness
> can in turn lead to big trouble down the line, especially if we never get back
> to finishing the job.
> 
> there are lots and lots of recipes for project charters out in the
> project-management literature by the way (google "project charter template"
> for lots of examples), i just forwarded the link to mine because it's handy
> and you don't have to pay to read it.
> 
> the reason i'm being such a pain in the neck about this chartering stuff is
> found in my write-up of the troubles we ran into while i chaired the Fast Flux
> working group.  many of those troubles were caused by a hastily-written,
> badly-formed charter and i don't want to see us repeat that mistake here.
> there's a link to my reflections on this on our working-group wiki page, but
> i'll repeat it here;
> 
> http://www.haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf
> 
> m
> 
> 
> At 02:01 PM 1/23/2009, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>> > Mike:
>> > 
>> > This is part of the PPSC process. The PPSC is putting together Charters for
>> the working teams in an effort to move the work along and to give each group
>> a starting point.  I asked and the members and observers on the PPSC agree to
>> circulate this draft to the WG Team mailing list to get input from those
>> folks that have expressed an interest in serving on this team in order to
>> help continue our momentum of moving things along.  The Working Team is still
>> accepting members and we will have to revisit the Charter, if only to
>> reaffirm that we have working groups consensus around the charter.  I
>> appreciate you points and I welcome your input.  Additionally, this Charter
>> is only designed to set forth in broad strokes the task of the working group
>> and the suggested parameters for team membership.  If you have suggestions
>> for wording that you believe would better define this, please put the
>> forward.  I am sure the participants on the list would be happy to review any
>> alternative wording you may have.
>> > 
>> > With regard the other points raised in your posting, I believe the working
>> team itself, subject to approval and input from the PPSC, will then come up
>> with a description of deliverables, tasks, roles and responsibilities when it
>> begins to formally meet (which I hope will be in the next week or so).  Given
>> this reality, your list may be an excellent tool to help the team work
>> through all these issues.  That said, I am not willing to commit the team to
>> a process until we are formally up and running and I know we have consensus
>> on proceeding as you suggest.  Again, however, if you have some specifics
>> that you wish to circulate to the list, I am sure everyone would greatly
>> appreciate any input that would help us move things along.
>> > 
>> > Again, thanks for your engagement.
>> > 
>> > J. Scott
>> > 
>> > j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark | Yahoo!
>> Inc. | evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > To: Gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:01:47 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Proposed Working Group Team Charter
>> > 
>> > 
>> > i think i'm confused.
>> > 
>> > if we're working on a draft of our charter (your attached redline), isn't
>> now the time to answer those questions?  or alternatively, should we re-title
>> the document we're working on right now, so's to leave room/time for that
>> first-objective charter-review you're describing?
>> > 
>> > a sketchy charter can lead to troubles down the line...
>> > 
>> > at a minimum, i'd like to see a definition of the problem we're supposed to
>> be solving, a description of the deliverables, a hint of the tasks in in
>> front of us and a description of our roles and responsibilities as working
>> group members.
>> > 
>> > m
>> > 
>> > At 12:34 PM 1/23/2009, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>>> > > Mike:
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks.  One of the first objectives of the actual team will be to
>>> review the Charter.  Since you are incommunicado at the moment, we can wait
>>> until our first team meeting and work through this list if others feel it
>>> would be a worthwhile exercise.  That said, I want to move the charter
>>> discussion along quick so that we can get down to the real substantive work.
>>> > >
>>> > > I appreciate your engagement and I look forward to discussing this
>>> matter with you further after your return from vacation.
>>> > >
>>> > > J. Scott
>>> > >
>>> > > j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark |
>>> Yahoo! Inc. | <mailto:evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
>>> 408.349.1385
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > From: Mike O'Connor <<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > > To: J. Scott Evans
>>> <<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>> <mailto:Gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>Gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>>> > > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:21:12 PM
>>> > > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Proposed Working Group Team Charter
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > hi all,
>>> > >
>>> > > thanks for the redline Scott.
>>> > >
>>> > > i'm on vacation and won't be able to really participate a lot until i
>>> get back to real Internet access in a few weeks, but i offer this small
>>> suggestion as to a series of questions that we might want to answer in our
>>> chartering;
>>> > >
>>> > > 
>>> <<http://www.haven2.com/pdchecklist.html>http://www.haven2.com/pdchecklist.h
>>> tml>http://www.haven2.com/pdchecklist.html
>>> > >
>>> > > i'll have more to say on this once i get back from vacation but hope
>>> that we might get to a charter that can answer most of these questions
>>> before we get too far down the road.
>>> > >
>>> > > m
>>> > >
>>> > > At 07:28 PM 1/22/2009, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>>>> > > > Dear Working Group Team Members:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I am attaching the following documents for your consideration:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > 1.  The current draft of the WG team Charter; and
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > 2.  A redlined version of the current draft showing the revisions
>>>> that have been made to this document from the proposed charter originally
>>>> posted on the PPSC Wiki.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > The PPSC is currently reviewing these documents and taking comments
>>>> from the PPSC members and observers on these documents.  These comments
>>>> will be accepted until January 28, 2009.  After that time, the PPSC will be
>>>> calling for consensus on this proposed Charter.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > While one of the first tasks of the fully constituted WG Team will be
>>>> to review, revise if necessary and approve this proposed Charter, I wanted
>>>> to give each of those that have expressed an interest in serving on this
>>>> team a chance to comment at this stage in the hopes of reducing this as a
>>>> deliverable for the team once we formally begin our work.  To this end, I
>>>> would ask that anyone who has comment to submit it to the list or, if you
>>>> prefer, to me privately and I will pass it on to the members of the PPSC.
>>>> > > >
>> >

-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx