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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
+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