Re: [council] Working Groups for non PDP purposes

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Al I am saying is that we don't need to wait for P&I and could implement
one of the quick working groups anytime we decide it is the right thing
to do.

I especially point out:


6.4 Applicability
The GNSO Council or any of its sub-groups may decide to utilize a WG
anytime they think that community wide participation is advisable for
resolving issues. It should be emphasized that WGs are not intended to
apply to policy development processes solely.

avri


On 08-May-14 15:46, Mary Wong wrote:
> Hi all, this distinction has been discussed in the Policy & Implementation
> Working Group, which is currently beginning to explore possible criteria
> and other processes that may be suitable to use when the GNSO is asked, or
> wishes, to provide ³policy guidance² outside a PDP. In addition, it may be
> useful to note that the current WG Guidelines are not limited to just PDP
> WGs; as Avri noted, these WGs would not follow the Bylaws-mandated PDP
> steps of Issue Report etc.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 3:26 PM
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Working Groups for non PDP purposes
> 
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>> thanks for your e-mail - actually a good thought!
>>
>> Best
>> Thomas
>>
>> Am 08.05.2014 um 20:40 schrieb Avri Doria:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I happen to be re-reading the GNSO Operating procedures in preparation
>>> for one of those newcomer webinars.  Always good to have a refresher.
>>>
>>> I see nothing in it that prohibits us from creating a Working Group to
>>> resolve any issue we wish to resolve, even if it is not a PDP based Wg.
>>>
>>> So my question becomes, why don't we quickly charter WGs to resolve any
>>> of these interrupt issues.  We can charter a group with a narrow
>>> question, a time limit and the resources to make a recommendation to the
>>> council.  That would at least give the council the ability to then take
>>> a vote based on a bottom-up process that looked into the issue.
>>>
>>> Just a thought. This could give us a basis to work on.
>>>
>>> We might need some SCI assistance, not sure yet, to refine a couple of
>>> points to make this something that can occur quickly, such as voting on
>>> such a charter between meetings (the voting between meetings is already
>>> request already pending in the SCI), but unless I am mistaken we have no
>>> barrier to using our WG guidelines to actually get bottom-up work done
>>> outside of PDP constraints and time tables.  Also, unless a WG is a PDP
>>> WG, it does not need to include the various stages of issues report,
>>> initial report etc.  It can go from a GNSO Council Leadership
>>> constructed Charter, to an emergency meeting to vote on formation in
>>> less that the gap between two meetings.
>>>
>>> While this would not apply to creating policy which still requires a
>>> PDP, it could well resolve issues of whether something was consistent
>>> with policy.  And could certainly work on issues to do with governance
>>> and transition.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>>
>>> avri
>>
>>