AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Dec 3 19:05:40 UTC 2009
You guys are obviously reading more into this than was intended. Please suggest an amendment that makes you feel comfortable.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:00 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of
> Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and
> Stakeholder Groups
>
> > 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.
>
> Is that really what is meant there? That's not how I took it.
> If in fact that is the intent, then I agree with Stephane
> that the RrSG is very unlikely to support it or to vote for
> the motion.
>
> The decision on how ICANN's budget is set should not be at
> the sole discretion of any SG or constituency. How does ICANN
> budget for that?
> I would think at the very least, the SG or constituency would
> first petition the GNSO Council in some manner. The Council
> would work with Staff to make a decision based on priorities,
> budget, etc.
>
> If instead, what was meant is that such funding is possibly
> available with Council/Staff approval, that makes sense.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of
> Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and
> Stakeholder Groups
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Thu, December 03, 2009 8:37 am
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, "GNSO
> Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> 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-improvem
> ents-report-03feb08.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#_Toc7
> 6113182);
>
> 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-recommendation
> s-for-gnso-05nov09-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/.
>
>
More information about the council
mailing list