AW: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] is anything happeing

[KnobenW at telekom.de]

But it's on the agenda, and that's a step forward...

Wolf-Ulrich 


-----Ursprüngliche 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, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> 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 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche 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, <KnobenW at telekom.de> 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 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>