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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

A reminder here that the work of this group will be significantly focussed
on the process rather than the substance.

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan

 

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 03 October 2014 00:45
To: 'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
Importance: High

 

All,

 

May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. 

 

To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would
like to ask for one participant from each SG.

Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names,  I
suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the
Council.

In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is
also in attendance / engaged.

 

Please may I have names asap. Today if possible.

 

Thank-you,

 

 

Jonathan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report

 

All,

 

Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve
Crocker.

 

Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested
response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this
request and who will be in a position to meet in LA.

 

Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers
should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the
GNSO PDP. 

Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and
background to the EWG.

 

Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach
above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit.

 

Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is
obviously highly desirable.

Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such
response will be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Steve Crocker [ <mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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