RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

As I understand it, this group's role is making recommendations regarding what 
we believe is the best way to tackle the remaining recommendations related to 
the IRTP.  In that regard, the more specific we are the more helpful it will be 
and hopeful the more effective any PDPs will be.

The fact that we are mainly registrars and registries should not be viewed 
negatively.  The reality is that most others do not understand the issues of 
the IRTP and frankly for the most part are not terribly motivated to do so.  
Evidence of this is the delay in getting constituency statements.

Keep in mind that we would not be making any final decisions as to items that 
may be taken out; we would only be making recommendations for consideration by 
the Council and providing our justification for that.

I agree that determining feasibility could be a part of the ToR for possible 
WGs, but doing that also can be an effective way of organizing the work to 
maximize results. Creating a PDP or PDPs that involve recommendations that may 
not be feasible will not yield very good results in the long term and will then 
result in frustration.  In contrast, if we recommend work be done on 
recommendations that appear to be more feasible, much more will be accomplished 
and the process will be viewed much more constructively.  At the same time, we 
can group less feasible recommendations into a category that has lower priority 
and for which more work needs to be done before initiating a PDP.

It would be helpful for me if others in this small group answered and evaluated 
the questions and comments I made.  I may be totally off base on some of them. 
But if we come to agreement on some of the recommendations that will help us to 
propose a work plan that has the greatest chances of being successful.

I could see us proposing three PDPs with the broad groupings that you suggested 
(after we refine them some if needed).  Then we could also propose a third 
group of recommendations requiring further work before considering putting them 
into a PDP. We could also make a recommendation as to whether the PDPs should 
run concurrently or serially.  Finally, in our proposals for PDPs we could 
provide some preliminary ideas for elements of ToRs for working groups in the 
PDPs.

This then would give the Council a fairly concrete plan for moving forward that 
could be acted on.  Otherwise, the Council will end up not far from where we 
were in our last meeting, asking how we should proceed.

Chuck 



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer 
issues

Hi Chuck,

thanks for the very useful comments. I personally think that this group should 
stick to the grouping and prioritizing of the recommendations. Since this group 
is made up mainly of registrars and registries I do not want to get into the 
discussions whether we have taken out certain issues that might not have been 
in our interest (I'm not suggesting that your comments were leading into this 
direction, I just want to make sure). The only recommendations I believe we 
possible could remove or rather commpine are recommendations that are closely 
related like 7 and 2. Determining the feasebility of the recommendations could 
be a part of the ToR of the WG.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 00:29
An: Thomas Keller; Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer 
issues

Thanks Tom for the good work.  Using what you did, for most of the individual 
recommendations I inserted some questions, comments and suggestions for 
consideration.  They are highlighted in the attached file.

I am supportive of pursuing Tom's suggested grouping of the recommendations and 
then refining it as we look at the individual recommendations.  I suspect that 
we might be able to eliminate some recommendations but that is a decision for 
us to make together.

My comments are quite detailed and might be hard to discuss via email although 
my general approach could probably be discussed by email.  Would it be useful 
for us to have a conference call?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:25 AM
To: 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer 
issues


Hello,

I basically followed Olofs suggestion with the exception that I only created 
three groups and not five. Please have a look at the attached document for my 
first shot. As you will see I left the prioritization of the former TF as they 
are and just arranged the issues in groups following the ranking.

Best,

tom



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Olof Nordling
Gesendet: Montag, 21. Januar 2008 17:45
An: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues


Dear all,
Having re-read the document from Ross' prioritization committee (at 
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf ) I just wanted 
to share some thoughts with you:

1. According to a statement at the end of the paper "those issues scoring 8 or 
higher enjoy the broadest support from the committee". That would imply that 
issues 1 - 5 are in that group.

2. We could consider this top group in the listed order and see if any issue 
therein could usefully be grouped with any other issue with lower priority with 
a view to a PDP. Perhaps, for example, that issue 1 could be grouped with issue 
7?

3. Then such "PDP embryos" could be further considered from the perspectives 
of, for example, a) potential importance to the registrants, b) likelihood of 
reaching consensus, c) cost/ease of implementation of a possible outcome etc - 
and, low and behold, a proposed PDP running order would emerge like magic (?).

Just my three Euro-cents to start our discussions...

Best regards

Olof