[council] Board letter to GNSO Council

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

On how to go about doing the work that's being asked, I think the first
question that needs to be answered is whether we strive to create a drafting
team to come up with a proposal for "more effective and implementable"
alternatives to the IP Clearinghouse and the URS. The Board has given us
other options besides looking to better the systems that the IRT suggested
be used.

If we do decide to go for a DT, one question I ask myself is about the
team's composition. The new Council has 4 ex-IRT members on it (sorry if I
forgot anyone)! So while we are probably not expected to rehash the IRT's
work, at the same time it would be useful to have that expertise going into
this new task. What do the ex-IRT members think?

Stéphane


Le 15/10/09 17:48, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes at verisign.com> a écrit :

> 
> Mike,
> 
> I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so
> I would have a concern in that regard.
> 
> On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business
> regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the
> work they request us to do.  I think it would be premature and
> ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in
> place.  There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week
> to discuss the issues.  Before we develop a process, it would be helpful
> to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction
> with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good
> start.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM
>> To: 'Council GNSO'
>> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
>> 
>> 
>> Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the
>> Council, obviously.
>> So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul
>> to kick this off?
>> 
>> I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at
>> the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our
>> weekend sessions but at no other times.  It makes the weekend
>> sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more
>> contentious than warranted.  It allows a few well-funded
>> members of the community to have far undue influence over
>> Council deliberations and policy development.  With specific
>> respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of
>> all the arguments we have heard for months and over several
>> meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and
>> progress towards policy development.
>> 
>> Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be
>> allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation
>> periods as during our Wednesday session.  If councilors wish
>> to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought
>> to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to
>> speak than there are Councilors.
>> 
>> Do others agree or disagree with this?
>> 
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> 548 Market Street
>> San Francisco, CA  94104
>> (415) 738-8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM
>> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
>> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
>> 
>> 
>> We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday.  The one
>> clear position that was made is that the process should
>> follow the practice we have been following in recent months
>> and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
>> 
>> Chuck 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM
>>> To: Council GNSO
>>> Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Was just asked during another meeting  whether there was
>> any idea of 
>>> what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order
>> to meet the 
>>> Board deadline on this.
>>> 
>>> I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition
>> details to 
>>> have discussed this at all on the list.
>>> 
>>> I would like to invite the council to begin considering how
>> you want 
>>> to handle this.  Hopefully discussions have already begun
>> in the SGs.
>>> 
>>> One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to
>> start dealing 
>>> with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks
>> to get it 
>>> done.
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2161 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091015/7f972670/smime.p7s>