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.2014/1/17 Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Thank you also for the link.
Cheers !
-Olevie-
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]org>>Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org <http://www.isog.org>) & du FOSSFA
>> To: [log in to unmask]
<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@icann.org>
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@icann.org>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
(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