Hi,

On the call now, and as a preview to the section it was mentioned that 
the definition are preliminary and will be looked at at again the end of 
the process.

But i will bring up the points.

Thanks for the comments.

avri



On 18-Jan-14 12:33, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> Indeed, if the characterization of "the nature, scope and effect of such
> guidance" will be a substantive part of the WG's debated output, then
> it's just better at this stage not to propose any possible
> boundary-setting process extensions.
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 2014-01-17 7:51 PM, Olivier Kouami wrote:
>> +1 @Amr; I am following you. I like your opinion on this matter.
>> Thank you also for the link.
>> Cheers !
>> -Olevie-
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014/1/17 Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>
>>     BTW…, here is a link to the WG charter for reference:
>>     https://community.icann.org/display/PIWG/3.+WG+Charter
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     Amr
>>
>>     On Jan 17, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>     > Hi Avri,
>>     >
>>     > I think these definitions are all fine except for the one for
>>     “GNSO Policy Guidance”. The proposal to develop these definitions
>>     was made by the work-plan sub-team of the Policy and
>>     Implementation WG as a first step in answering the charter
>>     questions. This proposal was a very reasonable one (IMHO) as the
>>     intent of the definitions was solely for use by the WG members in
>>     order to make sure that everyone on the WG understood what the
>>     terms referred to while using them to develop recommendations. The
>>     definitions, as they stand now, are working definitions and not
>>     meant to be an output of the WG.
>>     >
>>     > However, the way I see it, the definition of “GNSO Policy
>>     Guidance” is a bit preemptive in some of its assumptions. The
>>     context in which policy guidance would be produced is still
>>     something to be determined by the WG, but already given what I
>>     feel is an inappropriate framing. I would have preferred something
>>     more closely in sync with the charter question like:
>>     >
>>     > A process for developing gTLD policy other than “Consensus
>>     Policy” instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process. The process
>>     by which policy is developed using “GNSO Policy Guidance” as well
>>     as the criteria determining when it would be appropriate to do so
>>     will be deliberated by the Policy and Implementation Working
>>     Group, and included as part of the Working Group’s recommendations
>>     in its final report to the GNSO Council.
>>     >
>>     > This will all still be discussed by the WG of course, but I see
>>     no need to include the circumstances in which policy guidance
>>     would be resorted to at this stage. WG members might very well
>>     work based on these assumptions in the future, when they should
>>     really make these determinations themselves.
>>     >
>>     > Thanks.
>>     >
>>     > Amr
>>     >
>>     > On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >>
>>     >> Proposed definitions in the Policy and Implementation WG.
>>     >>
>>     >> Viewpoints?
>>     >>
>>     >> avri
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> -------- Original Message --------
>>     >> Subject:     [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - proposed
>>     working
>>     >> definitions
>>     >> Date:        Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:41:20 -0800
>>     >> From:        Marika Konings <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     >> To: [log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>     <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Dear All,
>>     >>
>>     >> On behalf of the working definitions sub-team, please find
>>     attached the
>>     >> proposed P&I working definitions for your review and consideration.
>>     >> Please feel free to share any feedback you may have with the
>>     mailing
>>     >> list in advance of next week's WG meeting.
>>     >>
>>     >> Thanks,
>>     >>
>>     >> Marika
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> <Draft definitions - FINAL - 16 January 2013.doc>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
>> Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org <http://www.isog.org>) & du FOSSFA
>> (www.fossfa.net <http://www.fossfa.net>)
>> DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
>> PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC
>> (http://www.npoc.org/)
>> SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
>> Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224
>> 999 25
>> Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé –
>> Togo
>>
>