AW: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Stéphane Van Gelder
stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Mon Nov 9 23:57:49 UTC 2009
Please note that I am not suggesting we get involved. I am suggesting
we observe, and that way learn more about what this group is doing and
how their work may be relevant to us.
Stéphane
Le 10 nov. 2009 à 00:51, <KnobenW at telekom.de> a écrit :
> I understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI
> solution provided as soon as possible although the board has not yet
> decided upon, and I welcome this initiative. On the other hand the
> approach of this group formation looks a bit strange to me. From the
> membership structure they looks lik a GNSO WG (I wonder whether it
> has been discussed within the constituencies/SGs). They also request
> ICANN staff ressources which are needed for other activities already
> in the pipe. Has this already been accepted by ICANN? Ressources are
> rare.
> Is this the way to organize the WG-model based work in future? I
> don't think so.
>
> I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as the board on
> how to deal with policy development issues. If we start it this way
> we may be confronted with more particular interest groups in future
> trying to bypass the GNSO.
>
> Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear whether
> and to what extent the EoI is of interest for our work.
>
> Comments welcome.
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37
> An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council at gnso.icann.org
> Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
>
>
> I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are
> sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new
> gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members
> to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded
> community members in developing input to ICANN processes.
>
> I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt
> because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort.
> In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community
> final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that
> they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently
> prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board
> resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I
> conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are
> strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when
> they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of
> like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are
> clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
>
> Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they
> have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in
> its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am
> aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer
> to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way
> required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me
> that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the
> GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to
> be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the
> GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
>
> Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it
> doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer.
> If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of
> the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to
> understand that before making any decisions.
>
> Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to
> prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it
> is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and
> not as a representative from the Council.
>
> Other thoughts are welcome.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
>
>
> Hello all.
>
> Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of
> interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board
> resolutions from the Seoul meeting.
>
> Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made
> no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a
> personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the
> existence of the group.
>
> If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this
> group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for
> someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that
> name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to
> reflect this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
> Début du message réexpédié :
>
>> De : Antony Van Couvering <avc at mindsandmachines.com>
>> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC
>> À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams at mac.com>
>> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan at mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander
>> Schwertner <as at epag.de>, bdelachapelle at gmail.com, Johannes Lenz-
>> Hawliczek <lenz at dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood at comlaude.com>, mcgradyp at gtlaw.com
>> , Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim at godaddy.com
>> >
>> Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
>>
>> Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial
>> meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for
>> expressing your willingness to work with us going forward.
>>
>> Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our
>> documents in order. I attach them here:
>>
>> 1. Our charter
>> 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first
>> meeting
>>
>> If you have comments, please note them and present them at our
>> first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
>>
>> We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the
>> proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at
>> hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls
>> over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to
>> the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this
>> methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
>>
>> In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are
>> reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel
>> is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's
>> representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community,
>> as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are
>> people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many
>> will agree but we hope most.
>>
>> One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for
>> our first call, scheduled for Monday.
>>
>> I am of course available for questions, as is Liz.
>>
>> Thanks for your participation,
>>
>> Antony
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091110/0e6b0001/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2439 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091110/0e6b0001/smime.p7s>
More information about the council
mailing list