December 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

That would not satisfy the definition of consensus policy we have now. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:52 AM Eastern Standard Time To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Alternative RAA Motion Chick and I volunteered to work on the motion. My understand from the briefing that Kurt Pritz gave in Cairo (Chuck had not been at that meeting) was that based on the opinion of ICANN General Counsel, the way (and only way) to get the current package of RAA amendments implemented as a consensus policy would be for the Council to approve the package by a 66% majority. The other two steps outlined in the current agreement were wide-spread consultation, which they deemed to have already been done, and following GNSO ratification, Board approval. For any other package of amendments, a full-blown current PDP would be required (presumably for the aspects of the RAA which are within GNSO scope). Based on this, I drafted the resolutions below. Chuck did not feel comfortable proposing a vote which bypassed the Bylaw PDP process and suggested the motion that he posted today. As I read Kurt's statements, Chuck's motion will ultimately lead to mine, but with additional delay. I do not have the rights to make a motion, but I offer this in case someone else chooses to make it. I did not post this until today, because following Cairo, some At-Large people had stated that they were not at all sure that this package should be approved, given that there were some terms that were they felt were less than advantageous. Following yesterday's ALAC meeting, we are taking an online vote of the ALAC to determine whether we are indeed recommending adoption or not. I hope to have the result in time for the GNSO meeting. -------------------------------- Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; - It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level vote (>66%) of the GNSO Counsel. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted as a Consensus Policy. and presuming this motion passes, a second motion: Whereas: - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted as a Consensus Policy; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA are required; Resolve: The GNSO Council will strike a Working Group (Drafting Group?) to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and develop a proposal of how the GNSO Council can proceed. Obviously these two motions can be combined into one, but I thought it cleaner to separate them.

2 1

RE: [council] RAA Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

I likely would not support any stronger language. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:05 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council.* Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > > > Chuck, > > If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that > would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. > It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would > be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to > more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments. > > Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do > not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal > was to get something in place sooner than later, that at > least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the > registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly > without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc. > > But I don't agree with including the last point of your > resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick > to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in > favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to > can pursue the other issues separately. > > Whereas: > > ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related > to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In > response to community input via that process, ICANN Staff and > the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed > amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA). > > The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection > for registrants in specific areas in response to input from > the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement > tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should > go further. > > Resolve: > > The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and asks Staff to > work with registrars and the Council to define the most > expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed > amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. > > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Council GNSO" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment > Kristina. I apparently misunderstood. > > Chuck > > From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:14 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > > > > Thanks for your work on this, Chuck. Because I do not agree > that "there > is strong support for the agreed-to amendments" across the > entire ICANN > community, I suggest that that language be removed or, alternatively, > revised to indicate the segments of the community within > which there is > strong support. > > K > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:59 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] RAA Motion > > > > Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for > consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting. > > Chuck > > RAA Motion for GNSO Council - 11 Dec 08 > > Whereas: > > ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related > to amending > the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community > input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency > agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar > Agreement (RAA). There is strong support for those agreed-to > amendments, > albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. The > current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have > needed revision > for years. > > > Resolve: > > The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to > define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to > proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. The GNSO Council > will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed > RAA issues > and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and agreed-to > amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including clear > identification of the policy issues that are involved. > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Fine with me. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:12 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion All, staff may have a couple more suggestions shortly, but one change we do suggest now is to the phrase that currently says: "...ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA)." We suggest the following replacement: "...ICANN staff and the Registrar Constituency engaged in many discussions to explore possible amendments to the RAA." Thanks! Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:02 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council.* Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > > > Chuck, > > If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that > would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. > It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would > be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to > more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments. > > Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do > not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal > was to get something in place sooner than later, that at > least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the > registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly > without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc. > > But I don't agree with including the last point of your > resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick > to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in > favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to > can pursue the other issues separately. > > Whereas: > > ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related > to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In > response to community input via that process, ICANN Staff and > the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed > amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA). > > The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection > for registrants in specific areas in response to input from > the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement > tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should > go further. > > Resolve: > > The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and asks Staff to > work with registrars and the Council to define the most > expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed > amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. > > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Council GNSO" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment > Kristina. I apparently misunderstood. > > Chuck > > From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:14 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > > > > Thanks for your work on this, Chuck. Because I do not agree > that "there > is strong support for the agreed-to amendments" across the > entire ICANN > community, I suggest that that language be removed or, alternatively, > revised to indicate the segments of the community within > which there is > strong support. > > K > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:59 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] RAA Motion > > > > Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for > consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting. > > Chuck > > RAA Motion for GNSO Council - 11 Dec 08 > > Whereas: > > ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related > to amending > the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community > input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency > agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar > Agreement (RAA). There is strong support for those agreed-to > amendments, > albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. The > current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have > needed revision > for years. > > > Resolve: > > The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to > define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to > proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. The GNSO Council > will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed > RAA issues > and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and agreed-to > amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including clear > identification of the policy issues that are involved. > > > > > > >

1 0

Alternative RAA Motion
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Chick and I volunteered to work on the motion. My understand from the briefing that Kurt Pritz gave in Cairo (Chuck had not been at that meeting) was that based on the opinion of ICANN General Counsel, the way (and only way) to get the current package of RAA amendments implemented as a consensus policy would be for the Council to approve the package by a 66% majority. The other two steps outlined in the current agreement were wide-spread consultation, which they deemed to have already been done, and following GNSO ratification, Board approval. For any other package of amendments, a full-blown current PDP would be required (presumably for the aspects of the RAA which are within GNSO scope). Based on this, I drafted the resolutions below. Chuck did not feel comfortable proposing a vote which bypassed the Bylaw PDP process and suggested the motion that he posted today. As I read Kurt's statements, Chuck's motion will ultimately lead to mine, but with additional delay. I do not have the rights to make a motion, but I offer this in case someone else chooses to make it. I did not post this until today, because following Cairo, some At-Large people had stated that they were not at all sure that this package should be approved, given that there were some terms that were they felt were less than advantageous. Following yesterday's ALAC meeting, we are taking an online vote of the ALAC to determine whether we are indeed recommending adoption or not. I hope to have the result in time for the GNSO meeting. -------------------------------- Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; - It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level vote (>66%) of the GNSO Counsel. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted as a Consensus Policy. and presuming this motion passes, a second motion: Whereas: - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted as a Consensus Policy; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA are required; Resolve: The GNSO Council will strike a Working Group (Drafting Group?) to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and develop a proposal of how the GNSO Council can proceed. Obviously these two motions can be combined into one, but I thought it cleaner to separate them.

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Motion
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Chuck, If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments. Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get something in place sooner than later, that at least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc. But I don't agree with including the last point of your resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to can pursue the other issues separately. Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA). The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for registrants in specific areas in response to input from the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. Resolve: The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment Kristina. I apparently misunderstood. Chuck From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:14 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion Thanks for your work on this, Chuck. Because I do not agree that "there is strong support for the agreed-to amendments" across the entire ICANN community, I suggest that that language be removed or, alternatively, revised to indicate the segments of the community within which there is strong support. K From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:59 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] RAA Motion Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting. Chuck RAA Motion for GNSO Council – 11 Dec 08 Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA). There is strong support for those agreed-to amendments, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. The current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have needed revision for years. Resolve: The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. The GNSO Council will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and agreed-to amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including clear identification of the policy issues that are involved.

2 1

Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Hi, During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the appropriate staff person please let me know? Many thanks. K

2 2

RE: [council] Travel support draft text
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

> meetings allocations are fast approaching. Right, that's my concern. Regardless of my personal feelings, if we're going to do this there needs to be time for the constituencies to make decisions/arrangements. The response from Doug was that it was still all or nothing for now, but the Staff would see if they could work something different out. That's why we went with the somewhat highlevel principles below. So for now there may be accompanying instructions that fit the current situation, but they could be modified later if there is more flexibility without having to modify the Council approved principles. So once the principles are approved, we just need to know how much is available to split between the constituencies and draft an explanatory note on how they indicate how (or for whom) they are going to use the funds. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Wed, December 10, 2008 4:21 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, I believe the next step, once we have a document that is stable from the drafting team and has all the edits people on the council want to contribute, is to have a motion on making this the GNSO policy on distributing the funds. I also think it would probably be good to get constituency and public feedback on this motion and the document before we vote. We also need to make sure that we understand the conditions under which the staff will allow the constituencies to: > The use of travel support funds is to be solely determined by each > constituency independently as it sees fit to most effectively > progress the work of the GNSO. Ie. are we still under the all or nothing regime or has the staff decided to allow room, expense and travel to be allocated separately by the constituencies. I understand they have not accepted a proposal to allow the funds to be allocated directly by the constituencies (or do I misunderstand). We also need to get this done soon, as the next meetings allocations are fast approaching. a. On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:01, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > Agree. So what are the next steps? > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text > From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > Date: Wed, December 10, 2008 12:34 pm > To: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar>, Philip Sheppard > <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Yes, this change makes sense. > > > On Dec 10, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Greg Ruth wrote: > > I agree with this change. > > Greg > From: Olga Cavalli <olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar> > To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> > Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:11:12 PM > Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text > > Phillip, > yo make a good suggestion. > I personally agree. If I do not hear any other comments I will rewrite > the draft document. > We should review this issue during our next conference call. > Best > Olga > > 2008/12/8 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> > Olga, thanks for circulating this. > Seems fine. > On reporting I think we can be transparent without being bureaucratic > and burdensome on volunteers. > There is no merit in 15 Council members all writing a report saying "I > attended a Council meeting". > Moreover, I presume the system is that Constituencies nominate who > gets > the support but then the individual still needs to apply to ICANN > staff > for that support ? > If so staff is fully informed of who gets what and other staff is > fully > informed of who attended what. > Suggest the following instead: > Philip > > -------------------- > Transparency and Reporting: > ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who receive travel > support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the > support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

RAA Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting. Chuck RAA Motion for GNSO Council - 11 Dec 08 Whereas: * ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). * In response to community input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA). * There is strong support for those agreed-to amendments, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. * The current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have needed revision for years. Resolve: * The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. * The GNSO Council will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and agreed-to amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including clear identification of the policy issues that are involved.

2 2

RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

I also agree with Avri's suggested approach. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 6:41 am To: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, Steven Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, "Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen(a)ngelaw.com>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> Hi, This strikes me as an eminently sensible approach that would capture the range of viewpoints across constituencies better than the existing labels and also facilitate more precise tabulation of results. Best, Bill On Dec 11, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote: hi Chuck, I was working on how I was going to work with the other NCAs to figure out our collective viewpoint and went back to your original document where instead of using the words Top/Med/Low you used values from 5-[1,0] (not sure you allowed for 0). In terms of figuring out where the top priorities really are on a council wide basis, i think it would be good to go back to those values and then we could ado simple stats on them to see which really were the top priority items on a council wide basis. And by allowing a value of 0 for no-study we take into account the possible viewpoint of RC and NCUC and perhaps others on specific studies they feel are not worth doing. In terms of values it could be something like: Priority Top = 5 Medium high = 4 Medium = 3 Medium low = 2 Low = 1 No study = 0 and for Feasibility yes = 1 maybe/don't know = 0 no = -1 I also recommend that, for now, we unify the table without separating it for top/med/low and fill in numeric values for all of the constituencies, NCA, ALAC, and GAC if they are interested (though we can assume they give top marks to the studies they recommended). This will allow us to sort on the stats to get a better picture. I have attached a sample excel file (haven't put in the equations yet) that would capture it. With a 'little' bit of work, for some value of 'little', it could be turned into a form that the constituencies could just fill in the values for. Alternatively, each constituency could submit its values. This is just a suggestion, but I cannot think of a non numerical way to make sure that all of the constituencies valuations are all taken into account. I.e. how do we turn a bunch of low, med and highs into an average without using numbers? a. <whois-studies-cummulative.xls> On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:11, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Please disregard the previous Whois Studies Summary document and replace it with this one. It is requested that the RC, ISCPC, NCUC, ALAC and NomCom reps fill in the two column of boxes in the table and send the file back saved with the same file name with the group initials added. Thanks, Chuck <Whois Studies Summary 10 Dec 08 v2.doc> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj ***********************************************************

2 1

RE: [council] Travel support draft text
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Philip, Excellent questions/points. Some we discussed within the group, some we didn't. Here is my take on each. - will it be a lump sum given 1st Jan to each constituency or a budget against which constituencies draw down? With the way the Staff policy is designed right now, I think the Council provides a dollar amount to each constituency and asks them to inform the Council of the intended recipient. The Council informs Staff. It will be the constituency's responsibility to be sure the recipient makes the appropriate arrangements through the Staff travel agent or whatever process the Staff has put in place. For now, the constituencies cannot split the funding up by allowing one person airfare, another lodging, etc. But we hope that changes down the road and we may then have to modify the instructions/process. But the priciples would be the same. - how will the fixed sum/budget be determined if there is a variable cost of the nom com and GNSO chair travel (eg variable cost of 3 air tickets and variable days stayed). We might want to consider allocating funds on a per meeting basis so we can account for that, since it may vary by meeting. But the goal would be same, whatever amount is available for constituency use is split equitably. - if a new constituency appears in 2009 does the sum/budget to the old constituencies go down? The principles use *constituency* as the construct right now, but once we move to the stakeholder group construct our intent was that the principles would be modified to reflect that. - is a travel budget an incentive to form a new constituency? (Question for the OPS group to consider ?) When we move to the stakeholder group model the intent was that the funds would be split evenly across each stakeholder group. But that may be something we will want to revisit once its better understood to be sure there is still a fair allocation. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Travel support draft text From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 2:26 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> It may be useful to have first from staff a comment on the practicality / operation of what we are proposing. ie - will it be a lump sum given 1st Jan to each constituency or a budget against which constituencies draw down? - how will the fixed sum/budget be determined if there is a variable cost of the nom com and GNSO chair travel (eg variable cost of 3 air tickets and variable days stayed). - if a new constituency appears in 2009 does the sum/budget to the old constituencies go down? - is a travel budget an incentive to form a new constituency? (Question for the OPS group to consider ?) Philip

1 0