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
> 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.
> 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