ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>