+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]>

> 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]> 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]> 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]>
> >> To:  [log in to unmask] <[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) & 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