July 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

We have not ignored it, we just have no recommendations and the Council should not arbitrarily create any. The WG has tried, and I believe they intend to continue on unless the Council tells them to stop. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:20 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Tell me this Tim: The Board requested that the VI PDP WG provide some recommendations; as the manager of the process, do we just ignore their request? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:18 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > Chuck, > > Difficult? It's not difficult at all. The WG is nowhere near consensus. > I know of no reason why we have to call a special meeting or move the > scheduled one to act on some motion to notify the Board of something > they already know. That makes absolutely no sense. Seems that at every > turn we keep looking for ways to make more work for ourselves. > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:57 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > We would be voting on whether to send a response to the Board's request > that may or may not include the initial report. That simply > communicates > to the Board that the Council was involved as a manager of the ongoing > PDP. > > Why make this more difficult that it already is? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:37 PM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is that > > it > > is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I > don't > > believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some > > perceived > > requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I > also > > don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider an > > initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it > > without Council approval. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Tim > > Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled > meeting > > on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset of > > Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for > > document > > submission in advance of their retreat. > > > > Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The GNSO > > Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of > > the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating > > Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, > provided > > that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each House." > > The > > intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management > > responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe > that > > means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board. > That > > should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the > Council's > > role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We > could > > go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send their > > report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a majority > > vote of each House to do it. > > > > My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize attendance > > while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under > current > > procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is actually > > possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO > Operating > > Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that > > occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote. > > > > Chuck > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM > > > To: Tim Ruiz > > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > > > > I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should > also > > > show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can, not > > that > > > we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the > 8th, > > > this is a moot point anyway... > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a > minimum > > > > quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will be > > > nothing > > > > to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is > not > > > yet > > > > producing a final report and the Council does not create policy. > > The > > > > Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read > the > > > > report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it > would > > > be > > > > unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any > > public > > > > comment collected on it. > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > > > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am > > > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > > > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, > > > > "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many > people > > > > absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee > > voting > > > is > > > > permitted. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM > > > > To: Rosette, Kristina > > > > Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > > > But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines > and > > > as > > > > you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been a > > > > tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard. > > > > > > > > I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out > all > > > the > > > > stops to get this done asap..? > > > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled at > > > moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be > > taken. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > > >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM > > > >> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > > >> Cc: Council GNSO > > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for > maximum > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do is > > > favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to > be > > in > > > conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer > > would > > > be available if we don't move it? > > > >> > > > >> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be > > submitting > > > any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an > > initial > > > report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the Council > > to > > > take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be out > > for > > > public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it > and > > > taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our > tradition > > > of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is > unlikely > > > that any action would be taken anyway. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Tim > > > >> > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > > >> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > >> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > > > >> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am > > > >> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Dear Councillors, > > > >> > > > >> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 > > > September > > > >> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of > our > > > >> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize > > > action > > > >> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board > information > > on > > > >> VI > > > >> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results > > > indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted > > > party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a > > meeting > > > at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this > poll > > is > > > to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we > use > > > for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not > > > improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold > the > > > meeting at 11:00 UTC." > > > >> > > > >> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no > later > > > than Monday, 26 July 2010. > > > >> > > > >> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq > > > >> > > > >> Time-zone is active > > > >> > > > >> Thank you very much. > > > >> Kind regards > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Glen de Saint Géry > > > >> GNSO Secretariat > > > >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > > >> http://gnso.icann.org > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >

4 3

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

I believe some are convinced that the Board retreat is not the last opportunity to influence the first round. And even if the WG cannot conclude anything that would influence the first round, there is the assumption that there will be subsequent rounds that could be. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:10 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> So let's tell them to stop. Will they be any more progressed by waiting? The Board said provide recommendation OR we will deal with it... at least that was my reading. If we have nothing to send, so be it. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 9:01 AM To: Gomes,Chuck Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; Stéphane_Van_Gelder Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 We have not ignored it, we just have no recommendations and the Council should not arbitrarily create any. The WG has tried, and I believe they intend to continue on unless the Council tells them to stop. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:20 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Tell me this Tim: The Board requested that the VI PDP WG provide some recommendations; as the manager of the process, do we just ignore their request? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:18 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > Chuck, > > Difficult? It's not difficult at all. The WG is nowhere near consensus. > I know of no reason why we have to call a special meeting or move the > scheduled one to act on some motion to notify the Board of something > they already know. That makes absolutely no sense. Seems that at every > turn we keep looking for ways to make more work for ourselves. > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:57 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > We would be voting on whether to send a response to the Board's request > that may or may not include the initial report. That simply > communicates > to the Board that the Council was involved as a manager of the ongoing > PDP. > > Why make this more difficult that it already is? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:37 PM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is that > > it > > is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I > don't > > believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some > > perceived > > requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I > also > > don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider an > > initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it > > without Council approval. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Tim > > Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled > meeting > > on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset of > > Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for > > document > > submission in advance of their retreat. > > > > Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The GNSO > > Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of > > the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating > > Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, > provided > > that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each House." > > The > > intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management > > responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe > that > > means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board. > That > > should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the > Council's > > role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We > could > > go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send their > > report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a majority > > vote of each House to do it. > > > > My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize attendance > > while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under > current > > procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is actually > > possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO > Operating > > Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that > > occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote. > > > > Chuck > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM > > > To: Tim Ruiz > > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > > > > I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should > also > > > show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can, not > > that > > > we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the > 8th, > > > this is a moot point anyway... > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a > minimum > > > > quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will be > > > nothing > > > > to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is > not > > > yet > > > > producing a final report and the Council does not create policy. > > The > > > > Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read > the > > > > report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it > would > > > be > > > > unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any > > public > > > > comment collected on it. > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > > > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am > > > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > > > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, > > > > "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many > people > > > > absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee > > voting > > > is > > > > permitted. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM > > > > To: Rosette, Kristina > > > > Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > > > But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines > and > > > as > > > > you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been a > > > > tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard. > > > > > > > > I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out > all > > > the > > > > stops to get this done asap..? > > > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled at > > > moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be > > taken. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > > >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM > > > >> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > > >> Cc: Council GNSO > > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for > maximum > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do is > > > favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to > be > > in > > > conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer > > would > > > be available if we don't move it? > > > >> > > > >> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be > > submitting > > > any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an > > initial > > > report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the Council > > to > > > take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be out > > for > > > public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it > and > > > taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our > tradition > > > of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is > unlikely > > > that any action would be taken anyway. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Tim > > > >> > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > > >> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > >> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > > > >> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am > > > >> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Dear Councillors, > > > >> > > > >> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 > > > September > > > >> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of > our > > > >> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize > > > action > > > >> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board > information > > on > > > >> VI > > > >> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results > > > indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted > > > party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a > > meeting > > > at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this > poll > > is > > > to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we > use > > > for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not > > > improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold > the > > > meeting at 11:00 UTC." > > > >> > > > >> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no > later > > > than Monday, 26 July 2010. > > > >> > > > >> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq > > > >> > > > >> Time-zone is active > > > >> > > > >> Thank you very much. > > > >> Kind regards > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Glen de Saint Géry > > > >> GNSO Secretariat > > > >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > > >> http://gnso.icann.org > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Chuck, Difficult? It's not difficult at all. The WG is nowhere near consensus. I know of no reason why we have to call a special meeting or move the scheduled one to act on some motion to notify the Board of something they already know. That makes absolutely no sense. Seems that at every turn we keep looking for ways to make more work for ourselves. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:57 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> We would be voting on whether to send a response to the Board's request that may or may not include the initial report. That simply communicates to the Board that the Council was involved as a manager of the ongoing PDP. Why make this more difficult that it already is? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:37 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is that > it > is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I don't > believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some > perceived > requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I also > don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider an > initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it > without Council approval. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Tim > Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled meeting > on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset of > Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for > document > submission in advance of their retreat. > > Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The GNSO > Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of > the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating > Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided > that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each House." > The > intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management > responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe that > means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board. That > should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the Council's > role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We could > go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send their > report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a majority > vote of each House to do it. > > My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize attendance > while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under current > procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is actually > possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO Operating > Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that > occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM > > To: Tim Ruiz > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should also > > show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can, not > that > > we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the 8th, > > this is a moot point anyway... > > > > Stéphane > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > > > > > > > I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a minimum > > > quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will be > > nothing > > > to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is not > > yet > > > producing a final report and the Council does not create policy. > The > > > Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read the > > > report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it would > > be > > > unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any > public > > > comment collected on it. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am > > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, > > > "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many people > > > absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee > voting > > is > > > permitted. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM > > > To: Rosette, Kristina > > > Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines and > > as > > > you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been a > > > tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard. > > > > > > I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out all > > the > > > stops to get this done asap..? > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > > > > > >> > > >> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled at > > moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be > taken. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM > > >> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > >> Cc: Council GNSO > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > >> > > >> > > >> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do is > > favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to be > in > > conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer > would > > be available if we don't move it? > > >> > > >> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be > submitting > > any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an > initial > > report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the Council > to > > take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be out > for > > public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it and > > taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our tradition > > of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is unlikely > > that any action would be taken anyway. > > >> > > >> > > >> Tim > > >> > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > >> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > >> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > > >> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am > > >> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >> > > >> > > >> Dear Councillors, > > >> > > >> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 > > September > > >> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of our > > >> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize > > action > > >> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board information > on > > >> VI > > >> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results > > indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted > > party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a > meeting > > at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this poll > is > > to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we use > > for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not > > improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold the > > meeting at 11:00 UTC." > > >> > > >> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no later > > than Monday, 26 July 2010. > > >> > > >> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq > > >> > > >> Time-zone is active > > >> > > >> Thank you very much. > > >> Kind regards > > >> > > >> > > >> Glen de Saint Géry > > >> GNSO Secretariat > > >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> http://gnso.icann.org > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is that it is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I don't believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some perceived requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I also don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider an initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it without Council approval. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled meeting on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset of Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for document submission in advance of their retreat. Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each House." The intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe that means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board. That should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the Council's role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We could go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send their report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a majority vote of each House to do it. My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize attendance while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under current procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is actually possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM > To: Tim Ruiz > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should also > show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can, not that > we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the 8th, > this is a moot point anyway... > > Stéphane > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > > > > I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a minimum > > quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will be > nothing > > to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is not > yet > > producing a final report and the Council does not create policy. The > > Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read the > > report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it would > be > > unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any public > > comment collected on it. > > > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > <Glen(a)icann.org>, > > "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many people > > absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee voting > is > > permitted. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM > > To: Rosette, Kristina > > Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines and > as > > you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been a > > tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard. > > > > I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out all > the > > stops to get this done asap..? > > > > Stéphane > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > > > >> > >> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled at > moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be taken. > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM > >> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry > >> Cc: Council GNSO > >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > >> > >> > >> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do is > favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to be in > conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer would > be available if we don't move it? > >> > >> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be submitting > any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an initial > report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the Council to > take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be out for > public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it and > taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our tradition > of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is unlikely > that any action would be taken anyway. > >> > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > >> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > >> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am > >> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >> > >> > >> Dear Councillors, > >> > >> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 > September > >> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of our > >> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize > action > >> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board information on > >> VI > >> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results > indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted > party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a meeting > at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this poll is > to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we use > for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not > improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold the > meeting at 11:00 UTC." > >> > >> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no later > than Monday, 26 July 2010. > >> > >> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq > >> > >> Time-zone is active > >> > >> Thank you very much. > >> Kind regards > >> > >> > >> Glen de Saint Géry > >> GNSO Secretariat > >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >> http://gnso.icann.org > >> > >> > >> > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a minimum quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will be nothing to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is not yet producing a final report and the Council does not create policy. The Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read the report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it would be unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any public comment collected on it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many people absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee voting is permitted. -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines and as you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been a tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard. I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out all the stops to get this done asap..? Stéphane Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > > Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled at moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be taken. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM > To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry > Cc: Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do is favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to be in conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer would be available if we don't move it? > > And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be submitting any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an initial report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the Council to take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be out for public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it and taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our tradition of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is unlikely that any action would be taken anyway. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Dear Councillors, > > On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 September > meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of our > regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize action > on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board information on > VI > 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a meeting at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this poll is to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we use for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold the meeting at 11:00 UTC." > > Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no later than Monday, 26 July 2010. > > http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq > > Time-zone is active > > Thank you very much. > Kind regards > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > >

3 2

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do is favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to be in conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer would be available if we don't move it? And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be submitting any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an initial report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the Council to take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be out for public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it and taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our tradition of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is unlikely that any action would be taken anyway. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Councillors, On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 September meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of our regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize action on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board information on VI 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a meeting at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this poll is to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we use for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold the meeting at 11:00 UTC." Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no later than Monday, 26 July 2010. http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq Time-zone is active Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

Revised Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 15 July 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 15 July 2010. Revision: Kristina Rosette's absence with apologies has now been correctly noted under the CSG. Please let me know if you would like any other changes made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jul Thank you. kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for volunteers proposing a way forward on the RAP Final Report recommendations
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Dear Councillors, Following on from the GNSO Council discussion on Thursday 15 July, regarding the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Final Report Conclusions, Recommendations, & Next Steps http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-final-report-conclusion-recommendation… This is a call for volunteers who would be willing to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the report, which could include the timing of forming groups to consider some of the recommendations in the final report as well as how to deal with those recommendations that did not achieve unanimous consensus. For those recommendations that do not concern the Initiation of a Policy Development Process, proposed next steps / actions by the GNSO Council might be considered too. Please consult with your stakeholder groups and anyone willing to work on this task please contact the gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org. Volunteers are not restricted to Council members and may come from the RAP Working Group itself. While he does not have the time to take the lead on this, Chuck volunteered to assist in this effort if needed. Please submit names to be added to the mailing list for this purpose by 23 July 2010. A progress report on where the group is will be submitted to the Council at its next meeting on 5 August 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Dear Councillors, On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 September meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of our regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize action on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board information on VI 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a meeting at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this poll is to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we use for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold the meeting at 11:00 UTC." Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no later than Monday, 26 July 2010. http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq Time-zone is active Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 15 July 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 15 July 2010. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jul Thank you. kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0