ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Motion on GNSO Review WG Draft Charter

  • To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion on GNSO Review WG Draft Charter
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:05:25 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=uJKvc7Hcbugre00JPylISVvfQ2A5aEp3PQgqyScKpWI=; b=1PhWARIePeko+yKt7P3klTfncawnltrONF1RuHGbpShnn1F6dYJOook8sYwv0jXax/DdFwKNcxcsrbbZmCfGBvwf+qL6EvUbS9Jt3znkUWGuT1nw61oDWIC8SZAH+1sAqHtFSN31Qntqps9vZjXy6LNp4DuSSdQ8F6oK5wzHJNo=
  • In-reply-to: <5BE0E0B3AD494840A8B6F0332D6F0AD6@WUKPC>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <5BE0E0B3AD494840A8B6F0332D6F0AD6@WUKPC>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
  • Thread-index: AQHR262AjbFFaks1X0i8o8AzJR/IBKAZJ+cA
  • Thread-topic: [council] Motion on GNSO Review WG Draft Charter
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.6.150930
Dear Wolf-Ulrich.

Thank you for taking the lead on this motion, as well as providing Council with 
both options as it considers how to launch this effort with respect to the SCI. 
 It would be great if Councilors could weigh in on this choice before our next 
call.

Personally, I favor Option 1:  We allow the SCI to complete its existing tasks, 
and then dissolve it in favor of the new GNSO Improvements implementation Group 
(um...GIIG?).  Any new issues identified that would have otherwise been 
referred to the SCI would instead be referred to this group.

As another thought, perhaps we should also task this new group with making 
recommendations for post-implementation management of ongoing improvements.  
This would mean including in its charter the question of whether or not we 
should create a successor SCI ("SCI2") to address ongoing issues.

Thank you,

J.


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, July 11, 2016 at 14:44
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] Motion on GNSO Review WG Draft Charter


Dear Colleagues,
following from our discussion in Helsinki on how to proceed with the 
implementation of the recommendations on GNSO review, please find attached a 
related motion as well as a draft of the proposed charter for a GNSO Review 
Working Group.

The idea is that this entity would on the one hand perform the review 
implementation work and on the other hand within a timeframe to be defined 
supersede the SCI by taking on board the related work. Since two options for 
this "handover" seem to be feasible - either directly after the SCI has 
finished its remaining tasks on the table at present or after the WG has 
finished its review implementation tasks - both options are offered for 
discussion in the motion as well as in the draft charter.

I look forward to your feedback.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>