<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team
Adrian,
As you noted, the motion directs the DT to deliver a proposed charter within 30
days from the date of the motion; that translates to 27 Feb.
The next Council meeting after that is the one on 10 March in Nairobi. The 27
Feb completion date will meet the 8 day requirement for motions, so the Council
agenda for the 10 Mar meeting will include discussion and approval of the
charter.
So there are two firm dates: 1) Proposed charter sent to Council not later than
27 Feb; 2) Council action on charter on 10 Mar.
I would expect that the proposed charter will include suggested timeframes for
the other milestones that you suggest. But I would expect that it will be very
difficult to set a final PDP date. To try to do that would put us into the
same situation that the unrealistic time requirements in the current PDP does.
But I will leave that to the Charter DT.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 2:27 AM
To: Mary Wong; William Drake; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter
Drafting Team
Chuck et al,
Can we get a few milestone dates attached to this process from a
'delivering on time' point of view?
Perhaps something like (and this is very crude and for illustration
purposes only);
· Charter Drafting Team nominations close (xx/xx)
· Charter Drafted (yy/yy)
· PDP Process 1 Starts (zz/zz)
· PDP Process 1 Completed (aa/aa)
· Final PDP Presented to GNSO Council (bb/bb)
Even if this is just draft it would provide a timeline for the work to
be completed.
I believe, given the importance of this task, and the fact that a 'due
date' was thought important enough to be included in the motion, we should put
something in place ASAP. Without it, we could potentially be doomed to
'phaffing about' without direction.
Thoughts?
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 9:19 AM
To: William Drake; Chuck Gomes
Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter
Drafting Team
Thanks to Liz and Chuck for their clarifications and suggestions.
I agree that the DT should be reasonably small, and would in this case
personally prefer not to set numbers for each SG/SO/AC, or worry about
matching/equivalence. In other situations and over other issues, equal
representation of each group may be a fundamental concern, but in this case I
believe NCSG is recommending Avri and Milton not because we believe we (or
everyone) needs at least two (or however many) representatives. Rather, and for
the reasons that Bill has stated, Avri and Milton will best represent NCSG in
terms of what is likely to be a difficult preliminary issue (i.e. scoping out
the WG).
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:
Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
2/1/2010 4:33 PM
Subject:
RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team
I wouldn't see any problem with that. I just think it would be best to keep it
as small as reasonably possible because of the short timeframe and limited
task. If the CSG wants three to cover three constituencies, would you want
three? (BTW, they have not asked for three.)
Chuck
________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter
Drafting Team
Chuck,
Two. There are some fundamental issues in the air about the proper
scope and terms of reference for the WG that need to be sorted out by the DT.
Even if NCSG were to resolve its internal differences on these points, there
would probably still be differences between the houses once the discussion gets
to specifics. We're dealing with a rather variable geometry of perspectives,
and as I say both people mentioned will add to working these things through.
Best,
Bill
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Bill,
How many do you think the NCSG needs for the charter drafting team, not
for the WG.
Chuck
________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 3:59 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP
Charter Drafting Team
Hi
And from NCSG, Avri Doria and Milton Mueller.
One participant from each SG would not work for NCSG, as we
have a couple of contending perspectives in play, with multiple members aligned
with each. Avri and Milton have been very active and thoughtful proponents of
those respective perspectives, both of which overlap/synergize in some ways
with the positions advanced by other SGs. Should be an interesting
discussion...
Best,
Bill
On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Glen,
Please add Brian Cute from Afilias to this DT.
Thanks, Chuck
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|