<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team
Sure. I think estimates are fine as long as they are not rigid. That is why
the PDP times didn't work.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:59 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
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
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
>>>
|