RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Moving forward

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry for the belated response. However, the second version I submitted
of enumerated task 1 was meant to address exactly what Jonne pointed
out. Avri had brought it up during the meeting.

The version I submitted says we will *try* to have the necessary
expertise, which we certainly should do when certain expertise is called
for. It does not say only experts, or that it *must* have specific
experts. However, Jonne's version does not commit us to at least
attempting to find necessary expertise when called for.

Also, regarding size, my version only says *manageable size.* We may
find that is 100 people, we may not. It does not place a limit on it,
but it allows us to place a limit if we find it necessary. 

So I support my second version, but cannot support Jonne's.

Tim 
 
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Moving forward
From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 04, 2009 12:29 pm
To: "ext J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>, Working Group
<gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>


Hello everybody,

As I'm new to this group, I would like present myself. I am Jonne
Soininen
and I work for Nokia Siemens Networks. I have been working in the IETF
for
some time serving in different roles including document editor, working
group chair, and the past number of years as a member of IETF
Administrative
Oversight Committee (IAOC). I have served as the chair of the IAOC for
the
past year.

In addition to the IETF, I have been active in 3GPP, ETSI, and OMA over
the
years, which have quite different history, culture, and procedures.
Anyways,
I would believe that in spirit and philosophy ICANN is most probably
closer
to the IETF than the others.

Then to the matter at hand:

1) Size: I would think that the general requirement for the WGs is to be
as
open and as inclusive as possible. Keeping that in mind, I wonder if the
size of a WG would be a problem.

For instance, the WG that I'm responsible for in the IETF has hundreds
of
participants. However, basically just 10-20 people are really active.
The
others just are there for the show.

In addition, having a rule that doesn't put any quantity to the size
could
certainly cause problems if enforced. Who says what is too big?

2) Expertise: Expertise is really difficult to quantify, and thus, would
be
really difficult to enforce either. You just cannot say to anybody that
they
don't have the expertise to be part of the group - even if they refuse
to be
constructive.

I would propose the following wording:

"Be open to anyone interest in joining, offering their insights and
expertise to contribute to WG work to reach its goals as defined by the
WG
charter" (perhaps somebody can translate than from Finglish to English)

That basically keeps the WG open, but adds the possibility to say that
if
somebody is not constructive to reach the goals of the WG would allow
the
chairman to point that out.

Cheers,

Jonne.


On 3/4/09 7:47 PM, "ext J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear All:
> 
> Thank you all for the hard work on Saturday. I am attaching the notes that
> Ken Bour, ICANN Staff, so graciously put together and forwarded to me earlier.
> 
> Please review this as you begin to think about the work we have ahead,
> specifically the drafting of our work plan which I want us to have finished by
> March 21, 2009. Also, Tim Ruiz put forth a motion to amend one of the action
> items put forth by the Board's committee. In particular, point one on the
> Wiki. To assist you all in considering this, I have listed below the language
> Tim is suggesting:
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ________--
> 
> To get us started, here is another idea:
> 
> 1. Be open to anyone interested in joining and offering their insights
> and expertise; with a balance that keeps working groupsto a manageable
> size and to the extent feasible include participants with the expertise,
> skills, and interests that may be deemed necessary based on the subject
> matter.
> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ___________
> 
> I would like us to consider this and discuss it on this list over the next few
> days. On Monday, March 9th, I am going to ask Glenn to post a call for
> consensus on this suggested revision. I will also be contacting the list
> early next week to set up our first conference call.
> 
> Again, thank you for your hard work Saturday and I am looking forward to
> working with each of you on these important issues.
> 
> Kind regards.
> 
> J. Scott
> 
> j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark | Yahoo! Inc.
> | evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx