[bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues

[Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)]

I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might
see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.
 
regards
 
Tero
 
Tero Mustala 
Principal Consultant, 
CTO/Industry Environment 
Nokia Siemens Networks 
tero.mustala at nsn.com 

 
 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf
Of ext Jon Nevett
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: randruff at rnapartners.com; marilynscade at hotmail.com;
owner-bc-gnso at icann.org; bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC
statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues


Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you
decide which ones to move forward on?  For example, why RPMs in generics
would be more important than in .nyc?  Do you do it randomly?  Not sure
the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? 

Thanks.

Jon





On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:


	
	Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. 
	 
	
	From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] 
	Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM
	To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>; 
owner-bc-gnso at icann.org <owner-bc-gnso at icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <
bc-gnso at icann.org> 
	Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members --
regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues 
	 
	
	Marilyn and all, 
	
	In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's
comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is
clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so
we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two
ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based
applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN
equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation
being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win");
and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in
the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so
that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is
functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC.
In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution.
IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting
rooms and halls.... 
	
	Kind regards, 
	
	RA 
	
	________________________________________
	Ron Andruff
	RNA Partners, Inc.
	randruff at rnapartners.com
	www.rnapartners.com
________________________________

	From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
	Sender: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org
	Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400
	To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso at icann.org>
	Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding
BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues

	During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the
GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have
short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning
of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard
Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2].  

	I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC
[we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given
to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for
our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have
a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members
are reflected in the statement.

	Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this --
they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that
in the discussions  so far. ]

	I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and
clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110314/6c13dfd9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Brussels Intersessional Meeting- GAC Communique.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56570 bytes
Desc: Brussels Intersessional Meeting- GAC Communique.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110314/6c13dfd9/BrusselsIntersessionalMeeting-GACCommunique.pdf>