RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues
Dear all, When considering any grouping of issues at the call Wednesday, we should keep in mind that the August communication from Ross (see attachment), where the issues were listed, does feature headings (to be seen as groupings if you like...). Then, Ross' group was asked to prioritize the individual issues, which they did. Just a FYI so we don't go in circles on this.... Best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: den 24 januari 2008 20:43 To: gnso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues Wednesday, 30 Jan, 15:00 UTC (7 am PST) should work well for me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Glen De Saint Gery [mailto:gnso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:16 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues Chuck, Tom et al, Wednesday would be a possibility for teleconference given other calls on Monday and Tuesday. Suggested time 15:00 UTC Let me know Glen -----Original Message----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:31:56 To:"Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>, "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues I also think a call would be helpful. I could be pretty flexible for a call on Monday or Wednesday of next week and could also do a call on Tuesday or Thursday depending on the time. Chuck Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:29 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues Chuck, I agree with you plan to move forward as described below. We probably should have a call to work out the concrete PDPs and the furhter work section. Best, tom -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 15:04 An: Thomas Keller; Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx Betreff: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues 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 Attachment:
Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf
|