[council] Board letter to GNSO Council

Wed Oct 21 15:49:02 UTC 2009

Hi,

I understand the offer was in good faith, didn't mean to suggest  
otherwise.  Just don't see what's gained by positioning an extra- 
council entity that was the focus of disputes as a gatekeeper on who  
might lend expertise if the DT wants to consult.  Sometimes starting  
fresh and unburdened by legacy processes is an easier path toward  
consensus.  And IRT people will be at the table regardless.

BTW if we're building this from constituencies, for the drafting team  
NCUC would like Kathy Kleinman and Konstantinos Komaitis added to the  
list.

Thanks,

Bill

On Oct 21, 2009, at 11:32 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> The sole purpose of the suggested IRT group is to answer questions,  
> not to provide advice.  If no questions are asked of it, it will not  
> do anything.  To the extent the use of "advisory" created any  
> misunderstanding, perhaps the correct adjective should have been  
> "resource."
>
> It is certainly the Council's prerogative to reject the offer, which  
> was made in good faith and for the sole purpose of facilitating the  
> Council in avoiding the same errors in its report that were made in  
> both the Board letter and the staff recommendations.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:26 AM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
>
> Hello,
>
> Bruce said he 'could be available to meet with any subgroup of the  
> GNSO,' and I believe Avri suggested we get 2-3 names per  
> constituency to get the process started.  NCUC would support that  
> process, it's the
> right thing to do this within normal, agreed GNSO procedures.
> However, we would not support privileging the defunct IRT and having  
> it select members of an advisory group to the DT.  We, like most  
> everyone in ALAC I saw comment, were not happy with the way the IRT  
> process was handled and I suggest we do not unnecessarily revisit
> prior sources of strong disagreement, which will just cloud things.
> There are a lot of people with expertise who were not allowed to  
> participate in the IRT and probably wouldn't be selected by the IRT  
> but who could serve if a separate advisory group if the DT decides  
> one is really needed (not obvious ex ante).  And anyway, if  
> constituencies opt to put forward names that served on the IRT, that  
> will bring the relevant institutional memory to the table.  So we  
> don't need to elevate the IRT per se to some special position of  
> authority in this matter.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?
>> agenda_29_oct_2009).
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************