[Gac-gnso-cg] Charter - Final version ..

Tue Jan 21 11:10:01 UTC 2014

Thanks Manal & Colleagues,

I am in support of both suggestions below.

Jonathan

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: 21 January 2014 08:56
To: Ana Neves; Mike O'Connor
Cc: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter - Final version ..

In the same context, I want to bring to colleagues' attention the last 2
bullets under the title 'Critical Success Factors' of the charter .. They
state:

-    Agree on a follow-up mechanism and success measures

-    Maintain a channel to provide feedback to further enhance the process
and document those changes whenever applicable

Both points are relevant to post-implementation assessment, which I believe
is a bit early to decide before agreeing on cooperation mechanisms ..

On another note, I would like to grasp the opportunity to make another minor
comment on the charter .. I have the feeling that the term 'reverse liaison'
is difficult to understand 'reverse to what', unless you have the necessary
background:

-    there used to be a GAC liaison to the GNSO 

-    the model had its own challenges

-    one suggestion is, to try having a reverse liaison, from the GNSO to
the GAC  

So if colleagues acknowledge the challenge, I suggest we have this resolved
simply by:

-    either writing 'GNSO Liaison to the GAC', without the quotations,
before the first occurrence of 'reverse liaison'

-    or have a footnote at the first occurrence of 'reverse liaison',
stating background information along the lines of the above 3 bullets 

Hope this makes sense ..

Kind Regards

--Manal  

-----Original Message-----
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:29 PM
To: Ana Neves; Mike O'Connor
Cc: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter - Final version ..

Many thanks Mikey for the reminder ..

Like Ana, I see the merit behind the 'middle ground' option, which

implies some further commitment to ensure that our set of

recommendations works well in practice .. 

Yet, I see this more of a solution aspect rather than a charter one .. I

like the current focused mandate, limited timeline and suggested

milestones as stated in the charter .. When we come to compiling our

recommendations, we can then include one that stresses the need for

post-implementation assessment and fine tuning .. This assessment can be

done by this consultation group, a smaller group, a totally new one, a

mix of old and new members or any other options as agreed by then ..

Looking forward to hearing what other colleagues think ..  

Kind Regards

--Manal

-----Original Message-----

From: Ana Neves [mailto:Ana.Neves at fct.pt] 

Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:21 PM

To: Mike O'Connor

Cc: Manal Ismail; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org

Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter - Final version ..

Thanks, Mikey.

I world be in favour to the "middle ground" proposal for the timeline as

it would allow,?as you well said, a post-implementation assessment. What

we're trying to build here is not an easy task and could be very useful

to follow the process at least for 2 years.

My humble opinion at this stage...

Best, Ana

Sent from my iPhone

On 20/01/2014, at 13:01, "Mike O'Connor"

<mike at haven2.com <mailto:mike at haven2.com%3cmailto:mike at haven2.com>
<mailto:mike at haven2.com>> wrote:

there's one thing i forgot to add to that draft.

we had a discussion about how long this committee should last.  an idea

came to me this morning that would represent a middle option between two

extremes.

short extreme - we wrap up after our recommendations have been accepted

by the GAC and the GNSO

middle ground - we wrap up after our recommendations have gone through a

post-implementation assessment (1-2 years out)

long extreme - we continue on as a standing committee

i think part of the reason i forgot to add this to the "timeline"

section is because i wasn't clear what our view was - so maybe we could

have a quick discussion about this on the list before the meeting

tomorrow?

mikey

On Jan 20, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Manal Ismail

<manal at tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg%3cmailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>
<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>> wrote:

Many thanks Mikey !!

We, Jonathan and I, have added the signing off of the charter to

tomorrow's conference call agenda, which I will be circulating shortly

..

Hope everyone will be ready to adopt the charter by then ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 3:07 PM

To: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings

Cc: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
<mailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org%3cmailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>
<mailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>

Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter - Final version ..

hi all,

oops - i didn't structure the action items in my notes from our last

call very well, so i didn't put a trigger in there reminding myself to

update and circulate the draft.

here's a draft for people to review, based on the notes from that call.

my mistake, sorry about that.

mikey

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:

www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com%3chttp:/www.haven2.com>
<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for

Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

_______________________________________________

Gac-gnso-cg mailing list

Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
<mailto:Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org%3cmailto:Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>
<mailto:Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg

_______________________________________________

Gac-gnso-cg mailing list

Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140121/a055d327/attachment-0001.html>