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

Fri Nov 19 17:20:18 UTC 2010

Thanks Julie.

I'll put together an informal mailing list of the people that have said they were willing to work on this and get the process started.

So far I have Bill, Mary, Wolf... Please let me know if I have left someone off.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 nov. 2010 à 16:06, Julie Hedlund a écrit :

> Chuck, Bill, and Stephane,
> 
> This is on the agenda for the OSC for its meeting on Sunday the 5th in
> Cartagena.  Might I suggest that you suggest some specific changes for the
> OSC to consider?  I have attached the document in redline and clean versions
> if this might be of interest to you.  You could modify the text if you
> wished, or suggest changes or raise issues in an email.   If the OSC had
> these suggestions prior to Cartagena it would help to prepare them for the
> discussion and to determine how to proceed.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> 
> On 11/19/10 8:43 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes at VERISIGN.COM> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the GCOT or
>> not.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
>>> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM
>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
>>> Cc: <KnobenW at telekom.de>; council at gnso.icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference,
>>> Thursday 28 October 2010
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Stéphane
>>> 
>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
>>>> 
>>>> Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there
>>> was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem
>>> to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
>>> 
>>> Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior
>>> and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI.  Must be my
>>> English.
>>>> 
>>>> That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
>>> the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects
>>> of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
>>>> 
>>>> If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or
>>> others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can
>>> achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion
>>> endorses.
>>>> 
>>>> We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see
>>> if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
>>> 
>>> Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make
>>> it that way.  Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
>>> 
>>> BD
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Stéphane
>>>> 
>>>> Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW at telekom.de>
>>> <KnobenW at telekom.de> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why would that be the result?  As we discussed in the chat space
>>> during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said
>>> fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut
>>> down, and the VI motion should pass next time.  I guess I am fearless
>>> in this regard.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And it is an
>>>>>> indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation
>>> on SG
>>>>>> level have to be improved, too.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Undoubtedly these can always be better
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had
>>> limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised
>>> GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council
>>> list expressing concern about it.  That said, it wasn't just one SG
>>> that voted against it.  It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted
>>> against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we
>>> want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone
>>> in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs.
>>> But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed
>>> too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially.
>>> (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well).  And there's
>>> reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have
>>> provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't
>>> then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway.  Wouldn't
>>> delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more
>>> confusing signal?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to
>>> achieve balance than to create a separate group?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks much,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.williamdrake.org
>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> 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
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> <GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 2010 redline.doc><GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 2010 clean.doc>