ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Vertical Integration PDP Charter DT

  • To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Vertical Integration PDP Charter DT
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:49:15 -0500


Of course how this gets done can be your prerogative as chair of the council.

I would like, however, to comment on a few things:

- what you quote is practice, i.e a DT taking months to come with a charter 
then putting it to the council for a vote.  Yes, it is a facsimile of the 
committee of the whole deciding that it will solve the problem by chartering a 
WG.  And the new processes for WG that are about to go to public review do 
require a chartering organization to approve a charter - which i think makes 
sense.  There is, however, nothing that says the work cannot begin in parallel 
with all of these processes, so I appreciate you being wiling to put out the 
call for volunteers to the WG early.  Not sure why that has to wait for the 
council however, since the council did already decide there would be a WG, just 
not what its charter would be.  So a call for WG members can go out sooner I 
would think.

- While I know what a WG needs a liaison, i did not know that a DT which is 
short lived needed one too.  Of course the council needs to pick one out for 
the WG.  My hope is that it is someone who is interested in the subject while 
not being someone who is a champion for a particular perspective.  Likewise 
with a chair, isn't it the WG that needs a chair?  DTs need chair's too?  And 
are they same as the WG chairs - though I guess not, since the WG pick their 
chairs as opposed to having someone just volunteer.

- As the next council meeting is on 18 Feb. it means one needs a motion on a 
charter by the 11th.  With only 16 weeks in order to produce a report, I do not 
understand why we are already declaring that we cannot make that meeting.  If 
we have to wait for the following meeting we need to wait until the Nairobi 
meeting, which means we will have already blown 6 of the 16 weeks. Do we really 
need more then a week to develop a charter?

As far as I can tell, the council motion already contains the tasks to be 
completed by the WG, though I guess some believe it needs some disambiguation 
and further elucidation.  I think it is clear enough to get work started, but 
in any case we should be able to disambiguate the problem to be solved quickly. 
 And further disambiguation will happen during the course of the WG with 
question back to the council as managers if necessary.   

So what we really need is a WG process and should be able to either use the one 
other groups have been using or the draft the PPSG WGWT is about to release.  
And then we need a set of milestones.  I do not understand why this cannot  be 
done in a few days.  If we want to meet the 16 week deadline given by the 
council, we need to find a way to get things done as apposed to understanding 
why we can get them done.

But as I say, your call.


On 3 Feb 2010, at 16:11, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I appreciate the enthusiasm for getting started with the work of the Vertical 
> Integration (VI) PDP Charter DT and want to express my thanks to those of you 
> who have volunteered for this task.
> As I believe all of you know, the GNSO is in-between processes right.  The 
> PDP in Annex A of the Bylaws was found to be terribly inadequate years ago 
> and a WT is presently developing recommendations for revising it, but we are 
> still a few months away from completion of that work.  A key recommendation 
> from the Board regarding the PDP is that policy development should follow a 
> working group model.  The GNSO has been evolving toward that model for the 
> last several years, using open working groups instead of task forces or the 
> Council as a Whole as described in the old PDP.  The intent is to do the same 
> for the VI PDP.
> The first step in that process is to develop a charter, which is the task of 
> this DT.  Following the pattern of PDPs over the past couple years, the 
> charter will be presented to the Council for approval and then the WG can be 
> officially formed and the work can begin.  The next Council meeting is 18 
> February and it seems to me that it is probably not possible to finish a 
> draft charter in time for the Council to act on it in that meeting, 
> especially considering that the GNSO Operating Procedures require that 
> motions and any related documents be posted at least 8 days prior to 
> meetings.  The next Council meeting after that will be held on 10 March in 
> Nairobi.  The document posting requirements for that meeting according to 
> Board policy for ICANN international meetings is 15 February but motions are 
> not needed until 2 March.  I recognize that the 15 February deadline may be 
> too soon for the DT to finish their work, so I propose the following:
>       • We submit for posting whatever version of a draft charter is 
> available on 12 February.
>       • The Council discuss the key elements of the draft charter on 18 
> February and provide feedback to the DT.
>       • The DT complete its work and submit a recommended VI PDP Charter to 
> the Council not later than 1 March along with a draft motion for approval.
>       • A Councilor makes the motion not later than 2 March.
>       • The Council acts on the motion on 10 March in the Open Council 
> meeting in Nairobi.
>       • The official formation of the VI PDP WG be initiated on 10 March.
> I am fully aware that many in the community are anxious to get the PDP 
> started as soon as possible.  To try to facilitate that, I want to follow up 
> on a suggestion by Avri that we solicit volunteers for the VI PDP WG prior to 
> the approval of the charter by the Council.  I would think that we could 
> initiate the request for volunteers for the VI PDP WG in the 18 February 
> Council meeting and I will take the responsibility of adding that item to the 
> agenda for that meeting if there are no objections.
> For the DT to function effectively I believe it would be helpful for the DT 
> to select a chair and a Council liaison, the latter hopefully being a 
> Councilor.
>       • Is there anyone on the DT who would be willing to put your name in 
> the hat for DT chair?
>       • Is there a Councilor on the DT who would be willing to serve as 
> Council liaison? 
> Please respond on this list if you are willing to volunteer.  It may be 
> possible to decide on these positions via this list.  If not, it could be 
> decided in the first teleconference meeting of the DT.
> Note that Margie Milam will be the primary Policy Support Staff person for 
> this DT and for the eventual WG.  I would like to ask Margie to prepare a 
> draft charter containing the general elements common to all charters and 
> distribute it to this list as soon as possible so that the DT can focus on 
> the most important elements of the charter, i.e., the tasks of the WG 
> (scope), estimated timelines (if desired), etc.
> I also request that Glen or Gisella send a Doodle meeting request to the 
> members of the DT as soon as possible with possible meeting times late this 
> week or early next week, taking into consideration the time zones of the 
> participants as possible.
> One last comment: Although I will be included as Council Chair on the email 
> list of this DT and eventually the WG, I do not plan to participate actively 
> on either; I am only trying to help get things moving. At the same time, I 
> encourage you to contact me if you think I can be of assistance.
> Please feel free to suggest changes to any of the above.
> Chuck Gomes

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy