[council] RE: GNSO Council regarding questions related to Minutes of 19 October 2006

[Marilyn Cade]

Dear Council Chair

I have below outlined three questions related to the minutes of 19 October
2006. I have no objection to approving the minutes; I wish to highlight to
fellow Councilors and to you, as chair, three concerns and to ask that we
discuss these concerns briefly on today's call, as they are relevant to the
work of Council, and its future work on the GNSO Review, and to the work of
the Council and its TFs/WGs.  

I. First, let me deal with a simple item. In the discussion during last
Council meeting, the chair asked that TF and working groups written reports
be 7 days before the Council meets. I support that for the actual detailed
outcomes of a TF or WG, however, I propose a modification on 'status
reports' of work, or reports that are raising questions to the Council for
further consideration. I ask that the TF and WG be able to present those
kinds of reports up until 3 business days before a Council meeting. 

I note that for instance a TF or WG, driven by the need to progress work,
could be meeting on the Monday before a Council meeting on Thursday and
could identify a tough question the TF/WG wishes to bring to the Council's
attention, or could make significant progress at that a meeting and would
want to include that update in their report to the Council at its next
meeting. The rigid application of 7 days will limit the transparency and
accountability of the TF and WG, and the effectiveness of both and the
Council. 

I fully support that a draft report on policy, and such, of course, need to
be posted for 7 days before a Council meeting, but pragmatic management
dictates that we should, as Council, provide for exigent circumstances as
experience has taught us that they do arise. 

II:  I would like to ask that we get an update on the correspondence sent to
the Board under Item 3 in the Minutes, and on the status of the retention of
an outside 'agency' to deliver findings on economic questions relating to
the domain registration market.  

As you will recall, I had earlier asked to have Dan Halloran and Denise
Michel invited to the Council call, so I would trust that this would be
addressable by either Dan Halloran or Denise Michel

III. Under item 6, Decision 4, I take note that the staff were gathering
data on the PDP actions and basic data was to be available in the next few
weeks. Can we please get a quick status update on that very early in the
discussion on the GNSO Review, since it is a factual update on status that
will inform other discussions. 

Marilyn Cade, BC councilor