[council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS

[Gomes, Chuck]

Bill,

 

Here's one example:  Some people may not receive any direct financial
benefit from participation in GNSO work but they might receive
recognition that promotes their reputation and stature in the activities
that they are involved in whether that be in academia, in civil society,
in government, or whatever.  They also may be elevated in stature in
groups that appreciate efforts they make to promote certain positions
those groups advocate.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:12 AM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS
PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Hi

 

On SOIs in 5.3.3---Do you have any type of commercial or non-commercial
interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? Please
answer "yes" or "no."-could someone remind me how exactly we're defining
a non-commercial interest?  It's good that the unworkable language on
intangible benefits has been deleted but I'd just like to be sure what
needs to be declared under the language that remains...

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

 

On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:





Hi,  I am unclear whether these revisions were reviewed and approved by
the OSC?  If so, that should be stated clearly in the motion, that the
deliverables are from OSC rather than any work team underneath that
Steering Committee.  If not, then OSC needs to approve them and send to
us.  Please help to clarify this.

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:39 AM
To: philip.sheppard at aim.be; ray at goto.jobs; stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Cc: gnso-osc-ops at icann.org; gnso-osc at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS
PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Colleagues,

The first "Resolved" of the a.m. motion (see
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions> )
reads:

        RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables
submitted by the GCOT and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post
the aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public
Comment Forum.

I wonder whether the GCOT has submitted and the OSC has approved the
proposed revisions to section 5.0 in the version presented. To my
knowledge the OSC approval was given including  the DOI. In this case
I'd like to suggest a friendly amendment as follows:

        RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables
submitted by the GCOT and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post
the aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public
Comment Forum

Philp's and Ray's advise would be helpful.

There are still references to DOI left in the revision which I've
removed (see attached).

 

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

<<GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI
15 Oct 2010 redline (WUK_edit).doc>>

 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland

william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.org

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101117/1450c1f7/attachment.html>