RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good point Ross.  Admitting that I have not yet had time to review the
draft SoW, I would add to what you said by suggesting that the ToR
should include the following if it does not: 1) specific identification
of the problems that sunrise periods were intended to solve; 2) an
examination of whether implemented sunrise periods were successful in
solving those problems; and 3) exploration of alternative ways of
solving the problems other than a sunrise period.

Chuck  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:43 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group

I note that this focuses on process, whereas the GNSO is focused on
policies. It might make some sense if this were redraft to focus on
examining the appropriateness of sunrise policy vs. that of sunrise
processes. The processes are typically implemented after the policies
have been implemented via the various parties. The GNSO can only really
contemplate changes and make recommendations at a policy level.

Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> All,
> 
> Attached please find a draft statement of work for the Sunrise Working

> Group.
> 
> Please circulate online any questions, comments, and/or suggestions. 
> We will try to answer, incorporate, and/or organize before the Council

> Meeting next week.
> 
> Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker, drafters
> 
>