AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

[Gomes, Chuck]

Stephane,
 
I find this very surprising and extremely disappointing.  The RrSG has
representation on the CSG WT and there was no concern expressed from the
RrSG.  The CSG WT sought comments from SGs months ago and there was no
concern from the RrSG.  The RrSG has representation on the OSC and no
concern was expressed from the RrSG.  The recommendations were sent to the
full Council list on 5 Nov for discussion and comment and the topic was
raised for discussion on the 23 Nov Council meeting; still no RrSG comment.
Now a motion is made after many months of comment solicitation, and you say
the RrSG may not support the motion.  Am I missing something here?
 
More specifically to the point of the recommendations, you seem to be
talking about ICANN funding for F2F meetings.  The Toolkit of Services
recommendations say nothing about that. The recommendations simply say that
one of the services that could be made available for SGs and constituencies
is support for arranging face-to-face meetings for SGs and constituencies.
They make no reference to doing that for WTs, WGs, or other GNSO
organizations besides constituencies and SGs; in fact, a more general
approach that left it open to other organizations was rejected.  All that is
being recommended here is, if a SG or constituency decides to hold a F2F
meeting and would like Staff assistance for doing that, then they could opt
to use that service if they like.
 
Chuck
 
 


  _____  

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:02 AM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services
Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups


As written, I would think that the RrSG would find it difficult to support
TK recommendations considering that the second one is requesting: 

Support for organizing face-to-face meetings (e.g. date/time, location,
equipment, telephone bridge and, in certain venues, arranging
accommodations)

I know the email I sent to the Council list a few days ago raising the issue
of a tendency towards more and more requests for F2F meetings for WTs and
DTs has not generated much discussion. I do hope this is simply because
people have other things on their plate and not that the issue is of no
interest to anyone.


Perhaps this motion, and the contents of the TK recommendations, will
generate some discussion on the matter...


Thanks,


Stéphane



Le 3 déc. 2009 à 09:52, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> a écrit :


Chuck,
 
I'd like to second this motion but have one question regarding to the
"resolved": does "sharing the recommendations with the board.." mean that
there is no further need for board approval? In this case the council might
direct staff to execute the recommendations.
 
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

 

  _____  

Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 06:33
An: council at gnso.icann.org
Betreff: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations
for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups


I am making this motion for action in our 17 Dec 09 Council meeting.
 
Glen - Please post this per normal practice.  Thanks.
 
Chuck
 

Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

Motion by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: 

Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC
Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in
consultation with the GNSO Council, a “tool kit” of basic services that
would be made available to all constituencies.  (See Report of the Board
Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3
February 2008 located at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03
feb08.pdf, p. 46.);

Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on
26 June 2008 (
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182>
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182);

Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering
Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes
contained in the BGC Report;

Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder
Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of
the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; 

Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team
developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to
the OSC for review;

Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations;  

Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and
Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective
groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action
in our December meeting;

RESOLVED, the Council accepts the recommendations (
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05n
ov09-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05no
v09-en.pdf) and directs Staff to share the recommendations with the Board
and post the document on the GNSO web page at  <http://gnso.icann.org/>
http://gnso.icann.org/.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091203/e682355b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5484 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091203/e682355b/smime.p7s>