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