[council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Feb 2 13:37:41 UTC 2010
Thanks Bill and Glen.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:02 AM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter
> on the ARR]
>
>
> Having heard no opposition and with the timeline short, we
> took on board Kristina's phraseology and Glen's sending, hope
> that's ok with everyone.
>
> Bill
>
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree with Tim. I knew it was there and also assumed it
> was part of the letter.
> >
> > Take care
> > Terry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 8:11 AM
> > To: GNSO Council List
> > Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council
> letter on the
> > ARR]
> >
> >
> > I completely agree with Caroline, and no footnote necessary in my
> > opinion. There were no questions or objections raised
> regarding that
> > sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the
> letter. But if
> > there are objections to that then we should at least follow through
> > with what we voted to do and go with option 1. Let's not make this
> > overly complicated, these comments need to be submitted on time.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council
> letter on the
> > ARR]
> > From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer at mtld.mobi>
> > Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 9:06 am
> > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>, "GNSO Council List"
> > <council at gnso.icann.org>
> > Cc: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> >
> > I see no reason why we would not include the sentence, minus the
> > brackets, to help support the arguments in that paragraph around
> > needing additional representation. We could add a footnote to show
> > that this statement is supported by accounts shown in the FY10
> > Operating Plan & Budget [page 15].
> >
> > So, option 3 for me.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Caroline.
> >
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: 29 January 2010 13:58
> > To: William Drake; GNSO Council List
> > Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint at peacock.verisign.com;
> _Glen=22?=
> > Subject: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter
> on the ARR]
> >
> >
> >
> > First of all, let's not submit the comments until we
> resolve this in
> > some way.
> >
> > I think there are three things we can do that I talk about below:
> > Submit the comments as is with the statement and the bracketsRemove
> > the sentence from the commentsLeave the sentence but remove
> the brackets.
> >
> > In our meeting yesterday, we approved the letter with the
> statement in
> > brackets, so we probably do not need any additional action to do
> > option 1; if we do this we can literally leave it as is,
> which is what
> > we approved, or add a footnote to explain the brackets, maybe
> > something like this: "There was not unanimous support for including
> > this sentence."
> >
> > If we choose options 2 or 3, I believe we should insert a footnote
> > that explains what was done and why.
> >
> > The comments are due by 10 February, which is 8 days before
> our next
> > meeting, so we need to resolve this before then. To get
> that process
> > started, it might help to get a sense of where varous
> Councilors are
> > on this. To do that, I would like to ask as many Councilors as
> > possible to respond on this list to the following:
> >
> > Which of the options do your prefer and why? (1, 2, 3, none)
> >
> > Based on the responses received, we can then discuss how to reach
> > final resolution.
> >
> > Whatever we do, I think it is important to understand that the
> > bracketed statement is accurate so it is not a matter of
> accuracy but
> > rather a matter of whether we want to say it or not.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:06 AM
> > To: GNSO Council List
> > Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint at peacock.verisign.com;
> > _Glen=22?=; Gomes, Chuck
> > Subject: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] Hi
> >
> >
> > Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments
> agreed yesterday
> > inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that
> we passed a
> > motion accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item
> in brackets:
> >
> >
> >
> > [This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the
> > drafting team, so TBD: "It might also be noted that GNSO registrants
> > pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities."]
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, missed that. So what do we do?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue
> > among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless,
> I agree that
> > the letter should go to Council for review, and we can
> tinker with it
> > later.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM
> > To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina
> > Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt at icann.org
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
> > Importance: High
> > ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and
> > registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue. It is a well
> > established fact. At-Large members pay fees via registrars
> and do not
> > contribute anything directly.
> >
> > I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you
> want to leave
> > it fine.
> >
> > We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed
> > later.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM
> > To: Rosette, Kristina
> > Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW at telekom.de>
> <KnobenW at telekom.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read:
> > "...it is important..."
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around..
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nice job Bill. Two minor, nonmaterial edits:
> > In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to
> > "literature".
> >
> >
> > But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single
> > body of thought. Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one
> > literature mentioned would have led to a different conclusion.
> >
> >
> > The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth,
> selecting just
> > one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of
> > Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially
> problematic."
> > I think it should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member
> from each of
> > the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and
> > Resiliency team) seems especially problematic."
> >
> >
> > Ditto the above
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council
> > list as soon as possible with a request that all Councilors
> forward it
> > to their respective groups immediately for review and
> discussion, noting
> > that the Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address
> Kristina's points:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Apologies for belated comments. This looks great. Many
> thanks to you
> > all for drafting.
> >
> > I have two questions: 1) What is the point we are trying to make
> > regarding alternates? Are we simply raising the possibility without
> > taking a position? I was not entirely clear on that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but
> nobody really
> > argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily
> > imagine objections to/issues with the approach. Moreover,
> if there were
> > alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but
> still...) that this
> > makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less
> important. So the
> > wording was intended to put the idea on the table as something that
> > might be considered without implying it might be a substitute for
> > multiple slots. If people think it doesn't work and it'd
> be better to
> > make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2) Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct? I
> ask only b/c I
> > would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would
> have accounted
> > for more.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion.
> > Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants) in
> both GNSO and
> > ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and
> some people
> > are nominally represented by both even if they're not active
> > participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive
> boxes doesn't
> > work and such language can be viewed as murky from some
> > perspectives...Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************************
> > 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
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
>
More information about the council
mailing list