[council] two topics for the proposed meeting

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 30 16:09:48 UTC 2006

As I understand the proposed meeting agenda, it has two topics:
The .com renewal policy issues and progressing work on those, if a PDP is
And advancing work on the existing gTLD policy Development process. 

I would like for the first item to be a priority, given the timing issues
related to the board decision process.

I've so far only seen discussion that makes it look like the purpose is the
new gTLD policy. When this meeting was proposed it was focused on the .com
policy issues. 

I know we are expecting the Issues Report on that topic very shortly and
will vote on it next Monday. 

By now all have undoubtedly seen that the ICANN staff have posted an update
/new draft of the .com renewal/litigation settlement agreement for public



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:54 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding public comment processes

Hello Mawaki,

> i) if we are to make progress on the issues to be discussed 
> (which means we will be making decisions), I was concerned 
> that we may get into negotiations of some kind with live 
> participants, and the live inputs may lock some 
> options/decisions at the expenses of some other.
> Which, from what you're saying, shouldn't be the case.

No.  The work on issues would be undertaken by the committee.

The public comment process would be conducted as part of the normal
public comment processes as part of the PDP.

In the past few physical GNSO Council meetings we have offered the
opportunity for public comment on any issues currently before the
Council - this is just being consistent with that recent practice.   It
restores a process that used to occur in the "General Assembly" portion
of ICANN meetings.

> ii) Second, and maybe most importantly, is it okay to decide 
> upon a public consultation meeting between two conference 
> calls, or is this a policy, or if you will, a "rules and 
> regulations" kind of requirement we need to advise and 
> advertise well in advance for all to be aware of?

The option to hold the physical meeting is on the agenda for the meeting
on 6 Feb 2006.  The proposal to attempt a face-to-face meeting to
advance our work was included in the draft agenda for the Council
meeting posted on 20 Jan 2006.   

The discussion on the mailing list is an attempt to develop a proposal
that has sufficient detail (dates/location/content) to allow the Council
to make a decision whether to go ahead in its meeting on 6 Feb 2006.  I
have been reading carefully the various comments and have tried to
select a date/location that is a reasonable compromise amongst the
various constraints of Council members.

Bruce Tonkin

More information about the council mailing list