[council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]

Fri Jan 29 13:58:09 UTC 2010

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:

1.	
	Submit the comments as is with the statement and the brackets
2.	
	Remove the sentence from the comments
3.	
	Leave 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:

				1.	
					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.

				2.	
					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
	***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100129/624c06dc/attachment.html>