RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

It is language that has been used (with variations) in several recent PDP 
working groups. A similar version, with modification, is being considered for 
use by both the Operations Steering Committee work teams and the Policy Process 
Committee work teams.  I believe it can be omitted if the group chooses, as I 
do not believe it is required that this group offer a suggested work process at 
this time.

Thanks, Liz

From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 11:31 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion

I *think* it's been handled on an ad hoc basis by each WG up until the FFWG.  I 
wasn't involved in that drafting team so I don't know the origin of the 
language.



________________________________
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:01 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion
Kristina, I copied this section from the Fast Flux Working Group Charter. I 
assumed that these served as the current guidelines for Working Groups, but I 
might be wrong here as these were adopted by the Council before I joined ICANN. 
How was this handled in the past? I am more than happy to leave it out and have 
the GNSO Council discuss which processes should apply to the Working Group.

Best regards,

Marika


On 2/9/09 6:54 PM, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Where did the Working Group Processes section come from?  I've never seen that 
text before and don't recall our discussing it.  (If I'm wrong on the latter 
point, please let me know.)  With the exception of that section, I'm fine with 
the motion.  I have no objection to changing the time window to 90 days as Beau 
suggested.  I have no objection to Greg's suggested amendment.

As for the Working Group Processes section, I would prefer that it be deleted.  
If these are the processes to apply, the decision should be made by the Council 
and should apply to all WGs - not just this one.  This is beyond our remit.  As 
for the substance itself, I believe the more appropriate terminology for the 
minority report should be minority statement.  The persons with the minority 
view aren't going to be submitting their own report, right?  In that case, a 
"statement" is more accurate.

I have no availability for a call before the 12th.  (I'm in SF for the INTA 
Internet Forum and won't be back in DC until Thursday.)

K


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx  [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Marika  Konings
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:18 PM
To:  gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft  motion


Dear All,

As mentioned in my previous e-mail,  please find attached a draft motion for 
review. Please note that the motion  will need to be provided to the Council at 
the latest by Thursday 12 February  in order to be considered at the next GNSO 
Council meeting on 19 February.  Please share your comments and edits with the 
list.

Best  regards,

Marika