AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010

[KnobenW at telekom.de]

 Colleagues,

As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some
observations/opinion which I'd like to share:

1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy
development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the 3
motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear
volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease. And it is an
indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG
level have to be improved, too.
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role"
meeting in Cartagena.

2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion
weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks. In this case normally a request for
delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the
motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal
to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe
that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.

3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see the
Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment.
Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I
join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a
separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively. The JAS WG
should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the
opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be
defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with
outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other
matters of urgency.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich