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

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jonathan,
 
I want to confirm the CSG has selected Susan Kawaguchi to serve on the working 
group.
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Formation of a 
GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/8/14 12:25 am
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  All,
 
 May I take the opportunity to please remind councillors that we need a total 
of 4 or 5 volunteers to support this effort.
 
 So far I believe we have:
 
 RrSG - James Bladel
 RySG - ?
 CSG - Susan Kawaguchi
 NCSG - ?
 Nom Com Appointee - Dan Reed
 
 I'd like to get names to Steve Crocker as soon as possible and also to agree 
the time for a face to face meeting in LA.
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 
 Jonathan
  
   From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 03 October 2014 17:52
To: Jonathan Robinson; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG 
Final Report
Importance: High
 


  Jonathan & Council:
 
 
 
I'll step up to represent the RrSG.
 
 
 
Thanks-
 
 
 
J.
 
 
 
 
 
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Afilias
Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3:25 
To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final 
Report
 
 
 
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]
 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