[council] Board letter to GNSO Council

Rosette, Kristina krosette at cov.com
Tue Oct 20 22:54:38 UTC 2009

I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT.  Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point forward.

The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes the work forward.  In particular, it would be most productive for that group to include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal.  (The IRT work was done through several work teams.  Those former IRT members who worked on the specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council

On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> If we do decide to go for a DT,

I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.

I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.

This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea.  Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this.  So I am suggesting we start now.

I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and  on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.

Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT  and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately.  I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers.  I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).

We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.

The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009
), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? 


More information about the council mailing list