[council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5

[Phil Corwin]

My primary concern relates to whether the decision making process to be used by the sub team would be permissible for the full WG and is consistent with relevant GNSO rules and guidelines. If it makes such decisions in the manner of a CCWG, and they are then subject to subsequent reversal or substantial modification using a different decisional approach, that could exacerbate rather than ameliorate the debate.



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VLawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Jeff's email below deals with some of the questions raised here on the list about SubPro WT5. James, Donna and I can update further after we talk with the SubPro leadership tomorrow.

Best wishes,

Heather


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Date: Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:49 AM
Subject: Note on Work Track 5
To: "James Bladel (jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>)" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>
Cc: avri doria <avri at apc.org<mailto:avri at apc.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>


All,

It seems that there have been a number of questions on the operation and establishment of Work Track 5 on the GNSO Council Mailing list.  I am not able to post on that list, but ask that this be forwarded.  I have not run this response by Avri, but I would hope she agrees.

According to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, found at https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf, Section 2.3 states:

“2.3. Use of Sub-Teams

The WG may decide to employ sub-teams as an efficient means of delegating topics or assignments to be completed. Sub-team members need to have a clear understanding of issues they work on as well as the results to be achieved. The members of sub-teams report their results to whole working group for review and approval. The WG should indicate whether or not it would like to have meetings of the sub-team recorded and/or transcribed.

Any member of the WG may serve on any sub-team; however, depending upon the specific tasks to be accomplished, the Chair should ensure that the sub-team is properly balanced with the appropriate skills and resources to ensure successful completion. It is recommended that the sub-team appoints a co-ordinator who heads up the sub-team and is responsible for providing regular progress updates to the Working Group.

There is no need for formal confirmation by the CO or WG of such a co-ordinator.

The lifespan of a sub-team should not extend beyond that of the Working Group. Decisions made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger working group and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.  “

This is what Avri and I are doing.  We are setting up a “Sub Team” which we are calling a “Work Track.”  Other than the last sentence of ensuring that all decisions go to the larger working group, there are no other restrictions on the operation of a Sub Team. Therefore, we believe that the choice of leadership, how meetings are conducted, the name of the group, membership, etc. is at our (the co-chair’s) discretion.

Yes, all of the recommendations from this Work Track will of course go to the full Working Group, just as they will for all of the other Work Tracks.

On the question of whether this will set a precedent on how Sub Teams will be used in the future, I will leave that to the folks who look back at this time period in 15 years or so.  But if it works and strengthens the multi-stakeholder process, while still having it operate under the rubric of the GNSO, would that not be a positive precedent?

I appreciate the Council interest in this and encourage you all to bring that enthusiasm to Work Track 5.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.



Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw


_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170807/ad58905d/attachment.html>