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

Fri Jan 29 16:10:35 UTC 2010

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
***********************************************************