ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-osc] Further Discussion on Working Team Chair Issue

  • To: "gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-osc] Further Discussion on Working Team Chair Issue
  • From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:31:30 -0800


Chuck has asked me to share our off-line dialogue on the Work Team chair issue 
with all of you.

Please see below.

Best regards,

Rob Hoggarth

------ Forwarded Message
From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:55:16 -0800
To: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Work Team Charters and OSC Mtg P.S. FYI


Please post this to the OSC list.

Thanks, Chuck

From: Robert Hoggarth  [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 13,  2008 6:09 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Work  Team Charters and OSC Mtg P.S. FYI

Thanks for your  various thoughtful comments Chuck.

One point of clarification on the  OSC members chairing the work teams, .....  
I agree with your general  assessment/concerns regarding the OSC members taking 
on a formal chair role  per Wolf's suggestion.  My recommendation was to have 
OSC members take on  an interim chair role only - similar to what you and Avri 
did for the  PPSC and the OSC  to make sure thateach team gets off to a 
positive start  with some direction.  In the OSC case you were willing to take 
on the  laboring oar.  In the PPSC case, Jeff Neuman and J. Scott Evans have  
taken on more of a joint chair role.  Each work team could decide its own  the 
long-term chair arrangements once they get going. I agree with you that it  
will be important to have the OSC (or GNSO Council) liaisons on each work team  
to keep them on-task.



On 12/13/08 9:37  AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:

Please see my responses below Rob.


From: Robert  Hoggarth  [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008  11:30 PM
To:  Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Work  Team Charters  and OSC Mtg P.S. FYI


I  actually appreciated  your discipline in offering comments on each draft  
charter  separately because it may be easier to keep each discussion   
distinct.[Gomes, Chuck]    Thanks. I guess time will  tell, but I think  that 
getting specific OSC members in interim chair  roles for each work team  could 
help focus and motivate the effort  for each team.[Gomes,   Chuck]  Here is my 
thinkinng on this: 1) Chairing one of   the work teams is going to be a big 
responsibility that will last  many months;  2) Several of the OSC members are 
already very busy in  the GNSO aside from  their regular jobs; 3) The OSC is a 
relatively  small team so finding  3 different members who have the skills and  
are willing and available to take  on the responsibility of chairing  a work 
team seems like a long shot to  me.; 4) If we establish this  as a requirement 
and then cannot find 3 people,  then we have to  modify the requirement; 5) In 
my opinion a better approach is  to not  have the requirement in the first 
place;  6) If we don't have   the requirement but most on the OSC like the idea 
of having an OSC  member  as chair, then we could still try to do it. 7) We 
could  actually explore  whether we have three qualified volunteers in the  OSC 
before we make a  decision on this suggested requirement.  My sense is that  we 
will start out  with common charter elements for each team, but that each  work 
team  will feature its own unique aspects elements.[Gomes,  Chuck]   Clearly, 
we  need one or two OSC members on each work team  to serve as OSC  liaisons 
and to monitor progress against the applicable Board   recommendations. I'll be 
prepared  to add the text you suggest to  other OSC member contributions that I 
 am hopeful will come in over the  weekend.

BTW, I double  checked all the red line versions as they were  delivered to me 
(as  an OSC list member) and each red-line document was  complete.   While you 
hinted at potential operator error in a previous   message this evening, I fear 
that we may be experiencing some  compatibility  ghosts again.  I'll check into 
it.[Gomes, Chuck]  On the GNSO   Operations Charter that worked, the full 
redline document did not  display at  first but after I did some clicking 
around the document  itself, the rest  appeared, so it is likely that the same 
would have  happened on the other  two.



On  12/12/08 4:36 PM, "Chuck  Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>   wrote:

In hindsight,  it  probably would have been better to comment on all three 
draft  charters  together because my comments were very similar. For all  
three, I think we  should add something like the following to the  Team 
Charter/Goals section,  probably before the goals:    "The primary task of the 
work team is  to develop a  plan for implementing all of the GNSO Improvement  
Recommendations  approved by the Board that relate to (insert 'GNSO  
Operations' or  'Constituency/Stakeholder Group Operations' or  
'Communications'."   And links to all documents, including motions,  describing 
 the Board approved recommendations should be   provided.


------ End of Forwarded Message

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy