RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No they aren't sufficient.
We are looking for an efficient process.
Can't we just estimate some turnaround times on all the tasks?

Adrian Kinderis

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 9:54 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Mary Wong; William Drake
Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting 
Team

Adrian,

Are the milestones in the current PDP sufficient?  They have rarely if ever 
worked but if setting milestones is the goal, we already have them.  
Unfortunately though, we moved beyond the process in the PDP several years ago.

Chuck

________________________________
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:01 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; William Drake
Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting 
Team
Whilst I agree it would be difficult to perfectly predict the final PDP date, I 
believe it is imperative that strict milestones be set and aimed for.
These milestones should be drafted and included in the charter.

Adrian Kinderis

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 12:49 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Mary Wong; William Drake
Cc: GNSO Council List; Glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************