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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I agree with your comments.  As a nomcom appointee, I do tend to  
think of myself as a volunteer in a relatively standard sense and  
consider time spent on ICANN as pro-bono work as no one pays me for  
the time spent on it and it bears no relation to any of my research  
or contract funding.  Yet having volunteered, I do not believe that  
this binds me or my time any less.  Yes, I volunteered, but having  
done so, I have taken on the tasks and have an obligation to them,  
even if they become onerous.  Having voted for the work items ahead  
of us, I feel it is incumbent on me, as much as someone who is funded  
by their company, to put in the required time to get the work done.   
I also think that we will need weekly calls with weekly action items  
if we intend to meet reasonable time constraints.

Having said that, I think it is good if we open up some of the work  
to more ICANN participants and constituency members.  Perhaps, even  
though we are working on the TLD issue as a committee of the whole,  
we could create some sub committees, that work of specific issues  
under this umbrella.

a.


On 15 dec 2005, at 08.45, Ross Rader wrote:

> 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.