<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter
- From: Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:34:41 +0800
- Cc: rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mr+NAWRa3NCIcQzmSHFUW6hzL54YNeALMXX5i6SEEu8=; b=BNiXuDliPglEUuArL6/SNq9P6LF5ywxOTfydmYQR3sDvGLwxS/GrwNZ6DzWRIreC9n Wfwd5i38XNp4HYSmv8uCDQYBnzQYAtRKz+3KXPt80LnIs5lZB1odl+g8RxA0sf1O0lae yqARMhe1GebZgSAsgkU8lamCGEcs3XB8Qx1Kk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=F6ECnM3sIfUTdwnFVk7FIQKB3JB9JUiQCPysG5bwrvuOkR5AjRz1C8rbXJXonRrWQk JMEf8ukLOeCROXq76IDSjQ9zfXkwPFiOsVgiVqjJqTkz5zrMOeDTXl2M2cPq69k2eMFu EsIOawn/5XPGoDG4wyxKn77J6NhXaJAFYCAaM=
- In-reply-to: <20110413121603.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.6cb70bad9b.wbe@mobilemail.secureserver.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <20110413121603.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.6cb70bad9b.wbe@mobilemail.secureserver.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As much as I'd support the work done by JAS, I do not see this a
micromanagement. I fully support Jeff and Tim that the this report should go
through GNSO first as required before submission to the Board.
The sooner the dialog can be restarted, the sooner we can get this fixed for
the needed applicant.
Ching
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A lot of people put a lot of effort into defining and refining our
> policy development process over the years. The concerns I have are that
> the CWG does not replace or undermine that. I believe that is what
> others have expressed concern about as well. Calling that
> micromanagement is out of line and just not true.
>
> Some have bemoaned what they see as unnecessary process. However,
> process is what protects this system. Without it, anyone at any time
> could question the validity of what is done and there would be no
> defense.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS
> > Working Group and Violations of its Charter
> > From: Rafik Dammak
> > Date: Wed, April 13, 2011 1:07 pm
> > To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" ,
> > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> >
> >
> > The worries that some on this Council have expressed about the way joint
> groups work and the risk of seeing them step outside the bounds of the
> Bottom-up Policy Development Process are clearly real in this context.
> >
> >
> >
> > the irony is to talk about Bottom-up PDP which is in the meantime hurt
> by the attempt of micromanagement I am observing from some in GNSO council
> .
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Ching CHIAO
Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.
Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group
Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG
=====================================
Email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Skype: chiao_rw
Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032
www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia
www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|