RE: [council] FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jonathan,
 
 I will pass this along to the leadership of the (C)SG, but I would encourage 
considering appointing Susan Kawaguchi, elected as my BC replacement on the 
Council.  As you know, Susan was on the EWG and could be a good translator for 
the group's work.
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FW: Formation of a 
GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 9/23/14 12:44 am
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


 All,
 
 Please see below from Steve Crocker. 
 
 Given the proposal suggested below and the suggestion that we aim to keep it
 to a manageable size, this feels to me like we may want to participate with
 around 4 or 5 people (a "handful").
 That could work with 1 per SG and possibly one other (one of the Council
 leadership group - Chair & VCs?) to make up the five.
 
 I look forward to comment and feedback from councillors so that I can revert
 to Steve and we can get together in LA.
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 Jonathan
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10
 To: Jonathan Robinson
 Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN
 Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
 
 Jonathan,
 
 I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize.
 
 During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session devoted
 to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that
 exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in hand but
 we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy
 development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our heads
 together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take
 that step.
 
 We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of
 members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical,
 organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before attempting to
 initiate another policy development process.
 
 I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might choose
 them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always better
 in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many who will
 want to participate.
 
 I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars this past
 week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them.
 
 The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was intended to
 provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've ever
 had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to understand
 what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do have a
 stronger chance this time.
 
 My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get this
 right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have given
 this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the
 resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do
 not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that
 can come from the working group.
 
 Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA
 meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule time
 for the working group to meet.
 
 Thanks!
 
 Steve