[council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Wed Feb 6 21:14:28 UTC 2019

Thanks all.

I will take the action to review and possibly re-draft the comment. If anyone else has views on this draft, please advise ASAP.



From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:36 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget


Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference.

I will await input and direction from Council leadership.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:


   The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council.

   My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment.

   On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission.


      Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> escreveu:

      Hi Paul,

      Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow.

      I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO.

      That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already.

      In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members.

      But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it.


      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

      On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>> wrote:


         I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be.  I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development.  Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s.  This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative.  I’m not sure that is a Council position.  In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting.  Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.

         While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).

         Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.


         From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight

         Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM

         To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>; GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>

         Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget


         I object to the comment in its current form.
         I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.




         Mr Michele Neylon

         Blacknight Solutions

         Hosting, Colocation & Domains



         Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

         Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

         Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichele.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019473593&sdata=Vxnt0oJWTTjxEIy3V2D1dPpl3%2Fdl0nQ4gjWRnyq9i7U%3D&reserved=0>

         Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019473593&sdata=UpJDcP6kr13afqiUQh6v%2BEqkAENYyfg%2FHCNHllwQnoE%3D&reserved=0>


         Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

         Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

         From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
         Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
         Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31
         To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
         Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget

         Dear all,

         The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.

         There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.

         Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.

         Thank you.

         Best wishes,

         Ayden Férdeline

         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

         On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:

            Dear all,

            On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.

            We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.

            If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!

            Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.

            Best wishes,

            Ayden Férdeline


         The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.


      council mailing list

      council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190206/23d49d57/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the council mailing list