RE: [council] Protecting Rights of Others Working Group: Meeting Call

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Thanks a lot for this clarifying response. Sorry, I didn't realize I
dropped out of the RN process; could you please add me to the RN-WG
and send me off list the latest version of the working materials (if
any, apart from the SoW)?
Thanks,

Mawaki

--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mawaki,
> 
> Please see my responses below.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
>  
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
> to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:24 PM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: Re: [council] Protecting Rights of Others Working 
> > Group: Meeting Call
> > 
> > Liz (thanks) and all,
> > 
> > I'm a bit confused. Is this PRO-WG the result or continuation 
> > of the discussion on reserved names, or a different process?
> 
> It is a different process.
>  
> > I just remember there were those two different discussion 
> > track (Ute's team on PRO, and Chuck & Marilyn on the RNs, 
> > etc.), and the Statement of Work was the document drafted by 
> > Chuck & Marilyn on the latter topic. Are these still two 
> > different processes or not?
> 
> Marilyn and I drafted the SoW for the reserved names working group
> (RN-WG; Ute and Kristina drafted the SoW for the Protecting the
> Rights
> of Others working group (PRO-WG), originally referred to as the
> sunrise
> WG.  The RN-WG has been going for several weeks.  The PRO-WG is
> just
> getting ready to start.
> 
> > 
> > It would be good to have a word or two on the purpose of each 
> > WG emerging.
> 
> Here's the purpose of the RN-WG as stated in the Council approved
> SoW:
> "The purpose of the WG will be to perform an initial examination of
> the
> role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second
> level., with the goal of providing recommendations for further
> consideration by the TF or Council.  This working group should
> focus
> initially on defining the role of reserved strings, and how to
> proceed
> with a full examination of issues and possible policy
> recommendations.
> This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of
> reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad
> topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate
> policy
> efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow some
> less
> complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner so that
> some
> policy changes might be included in the introduction of new gTLDs."
>   I
> attached the approved SoW if you want to see it.
> 
> >I remember having suggested (when feedback was 
> > sought to improve GNSO website, or even before) that there is 
> > a repository at one same page of our active WGs, TFs, 
> > Committees, and other Groups so that people can see at a 
> > glance the current policy activities. A very brief 
> > descriptive or statement of purpose (two or three sentences are
> > fine) could be posted on the page, too, just below each group
> title.
> > I see two links "Issues" and "Policies" where different 
> > categories of things are listed, but not quite what I'm 
> > suggesting, which would be more something like "GNSO Current 
> > Work & Groups" or something.
> > 
> > What have I forgotten this time?
> > Yes, would it make sense to ask for some prospective work as 
> > to how many parallel WGs etc. are likely to spin off from the 
> > current PDPs before we conclude them?
> 
> It's too early to tell but I think it is easy to project that there
> will
> be several follow on efforts recommended regarding reserved names. 
> Our
> recommendations are due before Lisbon, some of which will probably
> be to
> form follow on groups for a few of the reserved names categories.
> 
> > And how many could be 
> > launched independently by the council? That may help to plan 
> > for the individuals best participation and distribution in 
> > the various groups, depending on the human resources 
> > available, the interest, the experience of the people in the 
> > subject matter or related area, etc. (as opposed to one 
> > having to swap from one group to the next because the topic 
> > might be more relevant to one's constituency, or one might 
> > have more interest in it, for lack of volunteers.) Sometimes, 
> > I wonder if we shouldn't launch a "Work Quality and 
> > Inclusiveness" PDP to set the maximum number of those groups 
> > and issues the council could handle at a time.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Mawaki 
> > 
> > 
> > --- Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Colleagues
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There has been something of a lag on getting the PRO-WG 
> > group off the 
> > > ground. To address that in an efficient manner, I will be
> convening
> > >  
> > > the first meeting of the group on Tuesday 20 Feb at 7:30 
> > LA, 10:30 am 
> > > EST, 15:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.
> > > 
> > > Please review the latest draft of the Statement of Work found
> at 
> > >
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03194.html
> > > 
> > > At the first meeting we will:
> > > 
> > > 1.  appoint a chair of the group
> > > 
> > > 2.  review the existing Statement of Work and agree its final
> form
> > > 
> > > 3.  agree the first tranche of activities to be completed 
> > between now 
> > > and the ICANN Lisbon meeting
> > > 
> > > The rules of the Working Group will be similar to those of 
> > the IDN-WG 
> > > (found at
> > > http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18nov06.htm)
> > > 
> > > Can I urge you please to consult with your constituencies 
> > and propose 
> > > participants for the group?  It is MOST likely that there 
> > will be an 
> > > aggressive schedule of activities to support the work as 
> > this work is 
> > > being conducted in the context of the new TLDs Committee
> activities
> > >  
> > > and is time critical.  This will mean small working groups or 
> > > individual efforts and, at a minimum, a weekly conference call.
> > > 
> > > Please respond to the GNSO secretariat to indicate that you or
> your
> > >  
> > > constituency representative wants to be included in a new
> public 
> > > mailing list.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards and, of course, any questions, please call or
> email.
> > > 
> > > Liz
> > > 
> > > .....................................................
> > > 
> > > Liz Williams
> > > Senior Policy Counselor
> > > ICANN - Brussels
> > > +32 2 234 7874 tel
> > > +32 2 234 7848 fax
> > > +32 497 07 4243 mob
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>