+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