[council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
liz.williams at icann.org
Tue May 29 08:32:18 UTC 2007
Good morning everyone
I plan to release later this week some easy to read documentation and
explanations for the Committee to consider. There is a whole lot of
work going on that not everyone has been involved in and it would be
good to get everyone back in parallel. I am preparing a consolidated
text which sets out the draft recommendations and which also captures
the work of the three working groups -- IDNs, PRO and RN. This will
be in table form and will not include all the explanatory detail
which is available in the full reports.
Some of you may be aware that we are having another internal working
session on 4 & 5 June in MdR to make more progress on the
implementation planning and the Committee call is on 7 June. Shortly
after that I will release an updated full draft of the Final Report
which will be used at the San Juan meeting to complete the next
tranche of work and I expect it would be helpful to have another
version of the ICANN Staff Implementation Guidelines available.
The Final Report for the GNSO Council to vote on as a completed piece
of work will be available after the San Juan meeting.
A reminder too that the PRO and RN WG will be presenting their final
reports on 23 June in San Juan and that we have another GNSO GAC
session on 24 June.
Kind regards and, of course, any questions or clarifications, please
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob
On 29 May 2007, at 10:22, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> allow me to respond to your questions about how we handle the gTLD
> 1. We treated this issue as a committee of the whole of Council.
> This process was explicitly
> to ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by Council. It
> escapes all logic that
> Council would then vote on each recommendation. That process would
> seem suited to a task
> force report. Have we all been wasting our time? I trust not.
> 2. We also opened the group to observers and received excellent
> input. That was also a
> process designed to explicitly ensure incremental buy-in to
> recommendations by the wider
> 3. Staff have diligently drafted version upon version of the report
> so that we were all able
> to track emerging recommendations that achieved broad support. What
> was the point of all
> that if we now vote on each recommendation as if it came from
> nowhere ?
> 4. The recommendations were not made in glorious isolation. Many
> are inter-dependent. We
> will end up with a pigs breakfast if we assume the recommendations
> can operate in isolation.
> We must vote on the report as a whole.
> Not all the recommendations please everyone.
> It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because
> individuals wish to re-run
> arguments that earlier failed to persuade.
> If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our
> original wish list, so may
> the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.
> Further work
> There are a lot of issues that need further work or at least
> feedback to Council on their
> implementation. Indeed this applies to most recommendations !
> It would be useful therefore to explicitly mark in the report where
> Council expects formal
> feedback from staff.
> That makes it clear for us, clear for staff.
> Link to the sub groups
> We also need to make explicit reference to the inclusion and
> support for these reports where
More information about the council