ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Vertical Integration PDP Charter DT
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:30:14 -0500

Please see my responses below.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:49 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Vertical Integration PDP Charter DT
> Importance: High
> Hi,
> 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.

Chuck: There is no defined requirement why calling for volunteers for
the WG has to wait until the Council meeting on 18 Feb.  That just
seemed like a good place to kick it off and it would also allow another
couple weeks for the DT to do its work.  I have tentatively added an
agenda item on the 18th to get a brief overview of the draft charter
(assuming it is not already done); that information might assist
possible volunteers for the WG. It seems helpful to provide a WG charter
when we request volunteers.

> - While I know what a WG needs a liaison, i did not know that 
> a DT which is short lived needed one too.

Liaisons are simply to facilitate communication between the Council and
the team.  I am fine with Margie do that if the DT is okay with that.

>  Of course the 
> council needs to pick one out for the WG.

Chuck: I am not personally convinced that a liaison is absolutely
necessary for a WG either, but I support the concept.

>  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.

Chuck: Agree. If we cannot identify a liaison who is not a champion for
a particular cause, it might be better to have a Staff person or a
non-Council member fulfill the function.
> Likewise with a chair, isn't it the WG that needs a chair? 
> DTs need chair's too? 

Chuck: I believe it is helpful to have leadership in most efforts.  I
don't care what we call it.  Who is going to keep the ball rolling if we
do not identify a person or persons to assume that responsibility?

>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?

Chuck: If the DT can finalize a draft charter for Council consideration
by 11 February, it can be considered by the Council on 18 February.

> 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.

Chuck: I am not trying to determine the process.  It really is in the
hands of the DT and my intent was to suggest some things to help the DT.

> a.
> 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