From avri at acm.org Mon Sep 20 13:10:16 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:10:16 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing Message-ID: Hi, Just got back from the incredibly intense IGF weeks and am trying to catch up of my ICANN responsibilities. I remember that I signed up for this group. I was quite please we had started this group which I assumed would be responsible for oversight of the many implementation facets of the improvement effort the GNSO has been involved in. I see stuff being implemented, but saw nothing from this group and was wondering if perhaps I had just lost track. Are we on? Are we functioning? do we have a group, a charter, a structure .... Will be be reviewing the staff's implementation plans before they are actually deployed so we can be sure the meet both the letter and spirit of the policy changes the council has been approving. Also I am expecting that in the act of implementing, various inconsistencies and other anomalies will occur. At some point the OSC and PPSC will declare themselves done with the work of original policy planning and the task would fall to this group to recommend any policy changes needed to fix those anomalies (or at least that is how I understood it). I assume that is what this group will be doing and from the motion, which I supported the NCSG council members voting for, I figure that is what the council approved. But nothing has happened yet, and the implementation, like practices and forms for proxy voting, are starting to roll out without this group having taken a look at the plans to understand their conformance with the policy recommendations. As I say, maybe have has my mind was elsewhere and I not noticed, if so someone please forgive me and fill me in. thanks a. From philip.sheppard at aim.be Mon Sep 20 13:19:16 2010 From: philip.sheppard at aim.be (Philip Sheppard) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:19:16 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Avri, I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion. First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted. Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope would come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would seem to be duplication. Second, I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then finding issues with which this group could help. So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon. Philip From avri at acm.org Mon Sep 20 13:28:57 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:28:57 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> Hi, Well we are seeing some implementation related issues on the Council Operations WT already to do with SOI/DOI and Proxy voting. So I was wondering does looking at those issue belong there, with the policy already having been approved, or here. While the WT has not completed all its work while waiting on some issues related to revealing the staff contracting list, it had completed the SOI/DOI and Proxy stuff. a. On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:19, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > Hello Avri, > I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion. > > First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams > disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted. > Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope would > come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would seem > to be duplication. > > Second, > I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then > finding issues with which this group could help. > So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon. > > Philip > From philip.sheppard at aim.be Mon Sep 20 13:43:30 2010 From: philip.sheppard at aim.be (Philip Sheppard) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:43:30 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Is anything happening? In-Reply-To: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> References: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> Message-ID: <23335D222D8E48A7A79551D4DAB32E5F@PSHP> Sounds like a management issue for Council. If I was managing then this would be the policy: 1. PPSC /OSC work in progress - get on with it till adopted by Council. Thank the SC and team and demobilise. 2. Post adoption, any issues goes to this group. Philip From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 23 13:37:42 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:37:42 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] DOI Message-ID: <054D76FE-0AE6-4705-AB60-5AA100052323@acm.org> As the new GNSO policy requires written notification of DOI and specifically includes academic advantages among the examples of possible advantage, I hereby make the following statement: As a part time academic it is possible that someday I may possibly chose to write an article about ICANN and GNSO internal processes, their history, their development and/or their effects. Since such an article, if it were to published in a refereed journal or included in a conference proceeding, might count as an achievement within the university system and could even resort to financial advantage for my department within the Swedish educational system, I hereby register a possible academic interest in my participation in any and all of the process Work Teams and committee currently underway in the GNSO. I also point out that I am not currently working on such an article and that the possible writing and eventual publication of such an article in no way motivate my attendance or any contributions I may or may not make to such ICANN GNSO work. Though having written the DOI, it strike me that perhaps working on such an article might be interesting, thus making the DOI itself an activity that might become the impetus to create an interest. From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 23 14:43:31 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:43:31 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: [gnso-osc-ops] DOI In-Reply-To: <4C9B5E71.3040805@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: <054D76FE-0AE6-4705-AB60-5AA100052323@acm.org> <4C9B5E71.3040805@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: <00F64473-1420-457E-BFD4-634A226D6C47@acm.org> Hi, Actually less hypothetical than I thought. Writing the DOI convinced me that I should write the article, and am using the DOI as the introduction to the article. So at this point, I am writing an article on ICANN/GNSO policy processes, their development and implementation and may gain some advantage, or perhaps disadvantage, since advantage comes in both positive and negative directions. More than anything I am exploring the rules we make, the requirements we put on people and trying to follow them to their logical conclusions. Cheers, a. On 23 Sep 2010, at 10:04, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > Avri, > > This is rather hypothetical. You could just as well pre-confess to the possibility of using services originating from Elbonia (Lower), an underdeveloped economy, by an NGO not yet in existence, in a script not yet encoded in Unicode, in a language you don't yet know. > > I think it unlikely that Indians will be considered economically distinct from the rest of North America, or Appalachia for that matter, and that the "developing countries" language, which appears to be suggestive, not proscriptive, in Recommendation 20, the substance of the SOAC AG, will extend to applications intending to serve the needs of North American Indians, or marginalized non-indigenous populations. Therefore, I see no _real_ "interest" to declare in the SOAC AG context. Fee reduction, ability to apply for an ASCII string, a ??? string, and a ??? string (under either (a) or (b) approaches) would be wicked useful. But as these are improbable, there is no material "interest" in advocating these as generally available to applications that do meet the eventual interpretation of the characterization in Recommendation 20. > > So I _do_not_ declare an interest that does not currently exist, nor is likely to exist. > > To pick another scab, when eligibility closed for a certain unaffiliated elected position, I asked ICANN Counsel for guidance, as my employ with CORE ended three or four days after the date at which a would-be candidate had to meet the unaffiliated condition. My non-affiliation was _certain_ at a date only days after a date certain, for an election that would not take place for months, for a responsibility or office that would not commence until 1 January, 2011. > > The guidance ICANN Counsel offered was that status at the date certain was controlling. > > Therefore, something as certain as a prospective interest a week in the future, or the prospective lack of interest, again, a mere week in the future, was not relevant to the issue of eligibility to stand for election. > > I suggest that your approach is too speculative, though I'm not entirely happy with the guidance ICANN Counsel offered me only a few weeks ago, which is at least curable by revised SOI/DOI as material interests become actual rather than prospective. > > Eric > From KnobenW at telekom.de Tue Sep 28 14:47:46 2010 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:47:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing In-Reply-To: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> References: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> Message-ID: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D6D@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> Hi Avri and Philip, The topic will be - again - on the next council meeting agenda. According to the minutes item 8.3 of the last meeting OSC and PPSC shall be asked about their opinion how to proceed. I'd prefer having one team overseeing the whole implementation phase instead of different ones. The OSC and its related subteams seem to be closer to fulfil their tasks than the PDP working team, so implementation could start regarding the OSC related recommendations. PPSC could follow later. I'd be glad getting some inout for the next council meeting on 07 Oct. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 20. September 2010 15:29 An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing Hi, Well we are seeing some implementation related issues on the Council Operations WT already to do with SOI/DOI and Proxy voting. So I was wondering does looking at those issue belong there, with the policy already having been approved, or here. While the WT has not completed all its work while waiting on some issues related to revealing the staff contracting list, it had completed the SOI/DOI and Proxy stuff. a. On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:19, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > Hello Avri, > I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion. > > First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams > disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted. > Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope would > come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would seem > to be duplication. > > Second, > I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then > finding issues with which this group could help. > So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon. > > Philip > From avri at acm.org Tue Sep 28 14:57:48 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:57:48 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SC starting to do its job. Message-ID: Hi, I was given, as a reason for why the GCOT needed to do some rework on the GCOT recommendation on proxy and SOI/DOI that had already been approved by council, that this group had not yet been fully formed and could not, therefore, take on work. Since I firmly beleive that once a proposal has been made by a WT, approved by the OSC or PPSc and approved by the Council that it becomes the task of this group to review it if there are any problems or issues. Certainly the chartering steering committee can send it back to the work team if they do not approve - and we have seen that happen. And certainly the Council can send it back to the steering committee if they d not approve or have questions, and we have seen that happen. But once it is approved by the council, I do not think it appropriate to hand it back to the Work Teams. And certainly it can't be handed back directly by council to WTs, but must be handed back by the appropriate steering committee. Though I would also find it inappropriate to hand it back to the steering committees, which are supposed to be blinking out of existence taking on re-work stuff that has already been approved by the council. As I understand it, that is the job of this group. But in any case, to hand work back to the steering committees would require a council motion, would it not? So, back to my question, what is preventing this group from beginning to do its job? We have members (I assume, might be good to see a list of who is subscribed). We have a mandate from the council. We have a list. All we seem to be lacking is the catalyst to start and perhaps a first meeting to elect a chair (or co-chairs) and get started. As far as I can tell, the work is beginning to pile up. Thanks a. From avri at acm.org Tue Sep 28 15:02:36 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:02:36 -0400 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing In-Reply-To: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D6D@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> References: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D6D@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolf-Ulrich, It seems that we were having an improvement implementation moment almost simultaneously and our email crossed paths. I think I agree with you. I think this team should get started. And I agree, this SC should not take on any issue that has not yet been approved by the [O, PP] Steering Committee and approved by the Council. But once the council has approved a recommendation from either the OSC or the PPSC, it should become this group's responsibility to review and deal with any issues. a. On 28 Sep 2010, at 10:47, wrote: > Hi Avri and Philip, > > The topic will be - again - on the next council meeting agenda. According to the minutes item 8.3 of the last meeting OSC and PPSC shall be asked about their opinion how to proceed. I'd prefer having one team overseeing the whole implementation phase instead of different ones. > > The OSC and its related subteams seem to be closer to fulfil their tasks than the PDP working team, so implementation could start regarding the OSC related recommendations. PPSC could follow later. > > I'd be glad getting some inout for the next council meeting on 07 Oct. > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Montag, 20. September 2010 15:29 > An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing > > > Hi, > > Well we are seeing some implementation related issues on the Council Operations WT already to do with SOI/DOI and Proxy voting. So I was wondering does looking at those issue belong there, with the policy already having been approved, or here. While the WT has not completed all its work while waiting on some issues related to revealing the staff contracting list, it had completed the SOI/DOI and Proxy stuff. > > a. > > On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:19, Philip Sheppard wrote: > >> >> Hello Avri, >> I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion. >> >> First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams >> disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted. >> Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope would >> come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would seem >> to be duplication. >> >> Second, >> I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then >> finding issues with which this group could help. >> So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon. >> >> Philip >> > > From KnobenW at telekom.de Tue Sep 28 15:42:39 2010 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:42:39 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing In-Reply-To: References: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D6D@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> Message-ID: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D9A@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> Hi Avri, surprising telepathy! Would be interesting to develop a DNS for such a communication tool :-). With regards to the question when this team should get started I might have a slightly different view due to prioritization of council work. In this respect a firm opinion of the OSC and PPSC would be helpful. The team has not yet been officially installed by the council. To my knowledge there are volunteers so far: Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP) Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2010 17:03 An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing Hi Wolf-Ulrich, It seems that we were having an improvement implementation moment almost simultaneously and our email crossed paths. I think I agree with you. I think this team should get started. And I agree, this SC should not take on any issue that has not yet been approved by the [O, PP] Steering Committee and approved by the Council. But once the council has approved a recommendation from either the OSC or the PPSC, it should become this group's responsibility to review and deal with any issues. a. On 28 Sep 2010, at 10:47, wrote: > Hi Avri and Philip, > > The topic will be - again - on the next council meeting agenda. According to the minutes item 8.3 of the last meeting OSC and PPSC shall be asked about their opinion how to proceed. I'd prefer having one team overseeing the whole implementation phase instead of different ones. > > The OSC and its related subteams seem to be closer to fulfil their tasks than the PDP working team, so implementation could start regarding the OSC related recommendations. PPSC could follow later. > > I'd be glad getting some inout for the next council meeting on 07 Oct. > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Montag, 20. September 2010 15:29 > An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing > > > Hi, > > Well we are seeing some implementation related issues on the Council Operations WT already to do with SOI/DOI and Proxy voting. So I was wondering does looking at those issue belong there, with the policy already having been approved, or here. While the WT has not completed all its work while waiting on some issues related to revealing the staff contracting list, it had completed the SOI/DOI and Proxy stuff. > > a. > > On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:19, Philip Sheppard wrote: > >> >> Hello Avri, >> I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion. >> >> First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams >> disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted. >> Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope would >> come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would seem >> to be duplication. >> >> Second, >> I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then >> finding issues with which this group could help. >> So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon. >> >> Philip >> > > From avri at acm.org Tue Sep 28 15:54:11 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:54:11 -0400 Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing In-Reply-To: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D9A@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> References: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D6D@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D9A@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> Message-ID: Oh My, So we aren't even an installed team yet. No wonder we have not done anything yet. a. On 28 Sep 2010, at 11:42, wrote: > Hi Avri, > > surprising telepathy! Would be interesting to develop a DNS for such a communication tool :-). > > With regards to the question when this team should get started I might have a slightly different view due to prioritization of council work. In this respect a firm opinion of the OSC and PPSC would be helpful. > > The team has not yet been officially installed by the council. To my knowledge there are volunteers so far: Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP) > > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2010 17:03 > An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing > > > Hi Wolf-Ulrich, > > It seems that we were having an improvement implementation moment almost simultaneously and our email crossed paths. > > I think I agree with you. I think this team should get started. And I agree, this SC should not take on any issue that has not yet been approved by the [O, PP] Steering Committee and approved by the Council. But once the council has approved a recommendation from either the OSC or the PPSC, it should become this group's responsibility to review and deal with any issues. > > a. > > > > On 28 Sep 2010, at 10:47, wrote: > >> Hi Avri and Philip, >> >> The topic will be - again - on the next council meeting agenda. According to the minutes item 8.3 of the last meeting OSC and PPSC shall be asked about their opinion how to proceed. I'd prefer having one team overseeing the whole implementation phase instead of different ones. >> >> The OSC and its related subteams seem to be closer to fulfil their tasks than the PDP working team, so implementation could start regarding the OSC related recommendations. PPSC could follow later. >> >> I'd be glad getting some inout for the next council meeting on 07 Oct. >> >> Best regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Montag, 20. September 2010 15:29 >> An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Well we are seeing some implementation related issues on the Council Operations WT already to do with SOI/DOI and Proxy voting. So I was wondering does looking at those issue belong there, with the policy already having been approved, or here. While the WT has not completed all its work while waiting on some issues related to revealing the staff contracting list, it had completed the SOI/DOI and Proxy stuff. >> >> a. >> >> On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:19, Philip Sheppard wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello Avri, >>> I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion. >>> >>> First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams >>> disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted. >>> Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope would >>> come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would seem >>> to be duplication. >>> >>> Second, >>> I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then >>> finding issues with which this group could help. >>> So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon. >>> >>> Philip >>> >> >> > > From KnobenW at telekom.de Tue Sep 28 16:44:06 2010 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:44:06 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing In-Reply-To: References: <39CF3732-5835-475C-BE5A-8E5D425534F0@acm.org> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D6D@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7D9A@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> Message-ID: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE028D7DCB@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> But it's on the agenda, and that's a step forward... Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2010 17:54 An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing Oh My, So we aren't even an installed team yet. No wonder we have not done anything yet. a. On 28 Sep 2010, at 11:42, wrote: > Hi Avri, > > surprising telepathy! Would be interesting to develop a DNS for such a communication tool :-). > > With regards to the question when this team should get started I might have a slightly different view due to prioritization of council work. In this respect a firm opinion of the OSC and PPSC would be helpful. > > The team has not yet been officially installed by the council. To my knowledge there are volunteers so far: Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP) > > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2010 17:03 > An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing > > > Hi Wolf-Ulrich, > > It seems that we were having an improvement implementation moment almost simultaneously and our email crossed paths. > > I think I agree with you. I think this team should get started. And I agree, this SC should not take on any issue that has not yet been approved by the [O, PP] Steering Committee and approved by the Council. But once the council has approved a recommendation from either the OSC or the PPSC, it should become this group's responsibility to review and deal with any issues. > > a. > > > > On 28 Sep 2010, at 10:47, wrote: > >> Hi Avri and Philip, >> >> The topic will be - again - on the next council meeting agenda. According to the minutes item 8.3 of the last meeting OSC and PPSC shall be asked about their opinion how to proceed. I'd prefer having one team overseeing the whole implementation phase instead of different ones. >> >> The OSC and its related subteams seem to be closer to fulfil their tasks than the PDP working team, so implementation could start regarding the OSC related recommendations. PPSC could follow later. >> >> I'd be glad getting some inout for the next council meeting on 07 Oct. >> >> Best regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Montag, 20. September 2010 15:29 >> An: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Well we are seeing some implementation related issues on the Council Operations WT already to do with SOI/DOI and Proxy voting. So I was wondering does looking at those issue belong there, with the policy already having been approved, or here. While the WT has not completed all its work while waiting on some issues related to revealing the staff contracting list, it had completed the SOI/DOI and Proxy stuff. >> >> a. >> >> On 20 Sep 2010, at 09:19, Philip Sheppard wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello Avri, >>> I was wondering a little the same thing and have a suggestion. >>> >>> First, I believe we should see the PPSC and OSC wind up and their sub teams >>> disappear shortly as the first wave of proposals are adopted. >>> Any referrals from the GNSO on the lines of "this don't work" I would hope would >>> come to this new group and not back to the OSC or PPSC teams and that would seem >>> to be duplication. >>> >>> Second, >>> I am comfortable with a gap between the GNSO trying implementation and then >>> finding issues with which this group could help. >>> So the fact there is no work yet is to be expected - its simply too soon. >>> >>> Philip >>> >> >> > >