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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

And Avri Doria was selected to join this group by the NCSG. Rafik should be 
sending a notification to that effect.

Thanks.

Amr

On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:35 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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
> 
>