Please, Is Adobe Connect available for today meeting ?
Please do provide me with the link to this room.
I'm so late. Apologies.
-Olevie-
2014/1/22 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (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
|
