[council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006

[Ross Rader]

Ken - your point is well taken, my comments aren't intended to detract 
from this.

I'd like to underscore the need for continued outreach on behalf of each 
of the constituencies. Lately we've heard a fair number of concerns 
regarding participatory burdens. In my opinion, we are faced with a 
shortage of manpower - a shortage that can only be solved by increasing 
the depth and breadth of the membership of the constituency structure. 
If this issue isn't addressed, the GNSO will fail in meeting its policy 
objectives.

Further, I'd also like to clarify my understanding of the term 
"volunteer" as it relates to the vast majority of the members of the 
GNSO. We all represent various interests in the ICANN tent. To the 
extent that we represent our individual, personal interests, then the 
use of the term "volunteer" is indeed appropriate. However, for the rest 
of us, our participation is on behalf of various commercial and 
non-commercial interests. We advocate for their interests, and while our 
participation is optional, it is usually not undertaken on a true 
volunteer basis. This is more of a case of commercial and non-commercial 
benevolence - and appropriate at that.

The only instance in which this benevolence becomes volunteerism is at 
the point that the advocates are moved into positions within the GNSO 
that their capability to advocate their own interests takes a back-seat 
to their position - the chairs of the Council and tasks forces, council 
members, et al. are all required to represent the interests of aspects 
or all of the community and not of their sponsor.

This is a small point in the grand scheme of things, but I think its 
important that we are very clear, at least amongst ourselves, where our 
interests lie, what motivates us each, and above all else, whom is 
ultimately contributing to paying the bills for the activities we undertake.

Have a great holiday season everyone.

-ross

Ken Stubbs wrote:
> if this be the case then we need to be judicious in selecting the day 
> for the "committee of the whole" for new GTLD's conference calls.  
> (Remembering that
> this council is composed of "volunteers" with icann staff support.)
> 
> this could become a potential onerous burden on our members if we are 
> not careful here.
> if that be the case, then we should consider opening up the GTLD TF to 
> non-council members from the various constituencies..
> i would become very concerned if we cannot populate the new TF calls 
> with an adequate representation from all constituencies.
> 
> Marilyn Cade wrote:
> 
>> Dear Glen and fellow Councilors
>>
>> Thanks for the proposed calendar.
>> I can make those dates, with the understanding that if the WHOIS TF
>> continues on Tuesdays, that makes a heavy ICANN "day" on that one week 
>> each
>> month. That is manageable, since the WHOIS TF isn't meeting every 
>> week, and
>> undoubtedly, we could coordinate with that TF as needed to cancel that
>> week's meeting.
>> Thus, this seems fine with my calendar. Marilyn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT at GNSO.ICANN.ORG
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:39 AM
>> To: council at gnso.icann.org
>> Subject: [council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb.,
>> March 2006
>>
>> [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]
>>
>> Dear Council Members,
>>
>> These are proposed dates for the GNSO Council teleconferences in 
>> January, February and March:
>>
>> Tuesday 17 January 2006 19:00 UTC
>> Tuesday 21 February 2006 19:00 UTC
>> Tuesday  14 March 2006 19:00 UTC
>>
>> PDP working calls will be placed inbetween as required.
>>
>> Please let me have your comments.
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>> Kind regards,
>> Glen
>>  
>>
>