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
>
|