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 >