ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter

Avri, Chuck, all,
Starting with Chuck's item 2 - I fully agree that it's a real squeeze. Let's 
recall that the PDP rules set out 15 days for this (constituency statements due 
at T+35 and Initial Report due at T+50) and even that isn't easy, although 
doable (based on experience;-).
Then, recalling what we did for the IDN WG, we used the term Outcomes Report 
(in drafts 1 to n until we got consensus, then calling it "final", or rather 
skipping the prefix "draft" - this in order to save the expression Final Report 
to something endorsed by the Council.
Just my two Euro-cents on this for now.
Best regards


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:31 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Draft charter for IRTf Paart A PDP WG charter

On 10 Jul 2008, at 14:57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Thanks Avri.  Overall this looks really good to me. I have two
> comments
> regarding the Milestones that I through out for consideration when we
> discuss the charter and approve it.
> 1. It seems to me that there should be a milestone for T (WG formed,
> chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified), e.g., NLT 15
> days after charter approval.

i thought about that and since T was that point the WG started, the
time necessary to reach that time was actually before the charter and
something for which the WG is not responsible.  Maybe it is something
that should be added to the motion (found n the workspace or at  

> 2. Isn't 7 days awfully short between receipt of constituency
> statements
> and the initial report?

I do not know.  Perhaps the person responsible the TBD Staff person
can speak up on that one.



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