RE: [council] RE: Berard comments on agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting - 12 December 2013

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What then do you view as the CWG Framework John and how would that guide a CWG?

Chuck

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:51 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Berard comments on agenda for the GNSO Council 
Meeting - 12 December 2013

Chuck,

Perhaps I seem flip, but working alongside the folks at the Electronic Frontier 
Foundation during the Web 1.0 era, I came to endorse their mantra that 
"architecture is policy."  When technical or organizational decisions are made 
as to how things are done, they exert influence over why they are done, then 
and in the future.  This is what was on my mind when I suggested we needed to 
balance our working group approach (next step: getting co-chairs) and the far 
faster pace of the community working and strategy groups that are called for 
and put in place by the Board or Staff.  Think about the asymmetrical creation 
of the group to support ICANN's participation in the Brazil conference.  My 
concern is that the way in which these ad hoc groups may become the codified 
norm.

That's the background to my note.

Cheers,

Berard
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Berard comments on agenda for the GNSO Council 
Meeting - 12 December 2013
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 12/4/13 11:36 am
To: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
John,

I am not aware of any CWG framework created by the Board and Staff.  To what 
are you referring?

The only model I am aware of is the GNSO developed guidelines that the ccNSO 
provided feedback on.  Of course, we also have had several CWGs that have 
seemed to function quite well so we have those as examples.

In my opinion, I think we need to jointly develop a framework with the ccNSO 
and the ALAC (two groups that I think are essential) while inviting the ASO and 
other ACs to participate if they want to.  We have put this off for years and I 
think it may become increasingly important going forward.  I know we are all 
busy but I don’t think that this has to be that complicated or time consuming 
because considerable work has already been done.  The next step is to work with 
the ccNSO to develop a charter for a WG; I suggest that Jonathan reach out to 
Brian to get a drafting team formed with co-chairs from the GNSO & ccNSO.  Once 
a WG is opened, I think that GNSO/ccNSO co-chairs would again be a good way to 
go.

Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:15 PM
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Berard comments on agenda for the GNSO Council 
Meeting - 12 December 2013

Jonathan,

Regarding the cross community working groups, if the Board or staff call for 
them quicker than we can create a framework, the framework of the ones created 
by the Board and Staff will stand as the model.  If that happens, we would be 
better to spend our time elsewhere.

Berard

--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: [council] RE: Berard comments on agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting - 
12 December 2013
From: "Jonathan Robinson" 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 12/4/13 9:32 am
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks John,

I’ll respond quickly with a few thoughts in-line below whilst it’s still my 
working day at least.

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: 04 December 2013 15:59
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Berard comments on agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting - 12 December 
2013

Jonathan, et. al.,

Allow me to be a bit forward here.

While this agenda may seem light on its face (do agenda have faces?  that's a 
puzzler), I think there are three bits knit together from the action & project 
lists that ought to be our primary focus:

First, under cover of the PDP improvements work, there are three essential 
elements, 1, technology and tools in support of working groups, 2. expanding 
the pool of participants in working groups and 3. ensuring earlier 
participation by the GAC.  I am still stung by the way the GAC Buenos Aires 
communique made no reference to the IGO/INGO working group.

Under this one.  We are definitely moving ahead with the GAC early engagement 
so that is in hand.  First meeting Friday 6th Dec.  More communication to 
follow.
Regarding 1 & 2, it’s all about realistic, practical initiatives we can take, I 
think?

Second, linked to this and highlighted by the instinct for top-down direction 
is the nature of cross-community working groups.  Mary Wong and I are on point 
to follow-up your letter of invitation, but I think we ought to "farm out" 
invitations to specific SO/ACs based on whoever on the Council has the tightest 
relationships.  We need to move on this or we might as well stand down and let 
nature take its course.

Please clarify here?  There’s lots going on an I am not sure what specifically 
should be happening here.

Third, the GNSO review.  We ought to set a more specific agenda for the work 
that Jennifer is leading.

Agreed.  It’s just that there are two components:

1.       The board led work.  Which we need to track and potentially influence. 
 I don’t expect any significant movement in 2013.

2.       Our own initiatives linked to 1 above.  We need to be sure (or surer) 
where they are going to as to make sure what we do is coherent with their 
approach.
So, I feel we are tracking 1 with a view towards 2 and that there is not a lot 
to do immediately, hence why it is not on the agenda for Dec.
That said, we could schedule a regular update.

The ATRT2 letter might seem a 4th important bit, but it is due the next day and 
we will likely have a go/no-go from our groups before we get on the call.

Agreed.  This seems urgent and (IMO) we need someone to lead, pick up the pen 
and synthesise in a short and sweet fashion where we are with this.
Ideally it should link to and have e.g. similar numbering to any ATRT2 recs so 
it can be easily tracked.

My two (or three cents).

Berard

--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: [council] Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting - 12 December 2013
From: "Jonathan Robinson" 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 12/4/13 5:43 am
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All,

Please see attached for a draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 12 
December 2013.

It has not yet been published and distributed in the usual way but will be 
shortly.

Thanks.

Jonathan