<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16915" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>I echo Chuck's concerns in this regard, for reasons similar to what I just outlined in my last email regarding secret ballots.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the same time, I take Mike's point that we should try to maximize Council time and efficiency, particularly when we've got so much on our collective plates at this time. I don't mean to presume on the Chair's duties, but would it be possible to control the time in such a way as to effect this? Perhaps by limiting the number of representatives of each self-identified interest group who wishes to speak?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 10/15/2009 11:48 AM >>><BR><BR>Mike,<BR><BR>I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so<BR>I would have a concern in that regard.<BR><BR>On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business<BR>regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the<BR>work they request us to do. I think it would be premature and<BR>ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in<BR>place. There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week<BR>to discuss the issues. Before we develop a process, it would be helpful<BR>to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction<BR>with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good<BR>start.<BR><BR>Chuck <BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <BR>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh<BR>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM<BR>> To: 'Council GNSO'<BR>> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the <BR>> Council, obviously.<BR>> So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul <BR>> to kick this off?<BR>> <BR>> I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at <BR>> the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our <BR>> weekend sessions but at no other times. It makes the weekend <BR>> sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more <BR>> contentious than warranted. It allows a few well-funded <BR>> members of the community to have far undue influence over <BR>> Council deliberations and policy development. With specific <BR>> respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of <BR>> all the arguments we have heard for months and over several <BR>> meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and <BR>> progress towards policy development.<BR>> <BR>> Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be <BR>> allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation <BR>> periods as during our Wednesday session. If councilors wish <BR>> to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought <BR>> to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to <BR>> speak than there are Councilors.<BR>> <BR>> Do others agree or disagree with this?<BR>> <BR>> Mike Rodenbaugh<BR>> RODENBAUGH LAW<BR>> 548 Market Street<BR>> San Francisco, CA 94104<BR>> (415) 738-8087<BR>> <A href="http://rodenbaugh.com">http://rodenbaugh.com</A><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <BR>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck<BR>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM<BR>> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO<BR>> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one <BR>> clear position that was made is that the process should <BR>> follow the practice we have been following in recent months <BR>> and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.<BR>> <BR>> Chuck <BR>> <BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>> > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<BR>> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM<BR>> > To: Council GNSO<BR>> > Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Hi,<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Was just asked during another meeting whether there was <BR>> any idea of <BR>> > what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order <BR>> to meet the <BR>> > Board deadline on this.<BR>> > <BR>> > I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition <BR>> details to <BR>> > have discussed this at all on the list.<BR>> > <BR>> > I would like to invite the council to begin considering how <BR>> you want <BR>> > to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun <BR>> in the SGs.<BR>> > <BR>> > One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to <BR>> start dealing <BR>> > with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks <BR>> to get it <BR>> > done.<BR>> > <BR>> > a.<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>