January 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] JAS
by Tim Ruiz 21 Jan '11

21 Jan '11

I agree with both ideas. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] JAS > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Fri, January 21, 2011 6:06 am > To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > Councillors, > > Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair. > > One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly. > > As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board. > > Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums". > > Thanks, > > Stéphane

2 1

RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
by Rosemary Sinclair 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Hi Stephane I'm not sure we've allowed enough time for people to properly consider this idea and reflect on other views I got the first email on 19th Jan at 4.31am my time (Sydney) and then the suspend list email a little over 24 hours later With a quite a lot going on with work and otherwise I was not able to express a view within the 24 hours - my apologies for that. NCSG I think is a good example where (at the moment) our SG Chair SG Policy Chair are not on Council and we have practical difficulty keeping up with the task of ensuring full communication of Council matters so that our SG as a whole can make an informed and constructive contribution to GNSO deliberations. So I support the suggested list. Individuals can make their own decision about how closely they need to follow the list..and perhaps not at all. In a very general sense, it seems to me there is a danger that the increasing specificity of GNSO focus and narrowing of scope will come at the cost of strategic effectiveness for GNSO in ICANN as a whole. The overarching context provided by the Affirmation of Commitments and the agreed Strategy Plan suggest a preference for open, transparent and engaged communication between GNSO stakeholders and across the ICANN community. I thought your suggestion was a practical and positive contribution to open dialogue and I am truly sorry I was not able to express this view within the limited (as it turned out) timeframe available. Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccsg-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2011 12:01 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: ccsg-chairs(a)icann.org; Rosette, Kristina; Taylor, David Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list Steve, That is correct. Kristina also said she was never for nor against. There has been no other reactions so far. I am disappointed by the reactions that we have had, but there's really very little I can do if those reactions are the only ones that we get. So if the people on this group have a different opinion, then once again I suggest discussing that with your respective Council reps to get that position across. Thanks, Stéphane Le 19 janv. 2011 à 19:40, Metalitz, Steven a écrit : > > Stephane, > > I don't follow that list, but from what I see from looking at the archive just now, the negative reactions are solely from your fellow Registrar SG representatives. Is that correct or did I miss something? > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccsg-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:10 PM > To: ccsg-chairs(a)icann.org > Subject: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list > > > Dear C and SG Chairs, > > I'm sure you all follow the Council list and are therefore aware of the discussion about this list on there. > > The reactions so far from the Council are against this list. > > To my great regret, I am therefore asking Glen to suspend it. > > If you do not agree with this decision, please work through your Council reps to make that position known. > > Thanks for your understanding. > > Stéphane > > > > >

5 4

Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 3 February 2011.
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 3 February 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-03feb11-en.htm (Wiki agenda will have latest updates) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_3_february_2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 11:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:11:00 UTC - see below for local times (03:00 Los Angeles, 06:00 Washington DC, 11:00 London, 12:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne ) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest * Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." The main issues for this meeting are: * GNSO Project Decision Making * Registration Abuse Policies * Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery * New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 13 January 2011 Draft Council minutes - <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10512.html> Scheduled for approval on 31 January 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10512.html Item 2: Pending Projects - Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) (15 minutes) Update on Working Group's progess. Working Group (WG) was started on November 20, 2008. WG is chaired by Alan Greenberg. Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf. 2.1: Update on WG - Alan Greenberg, WG Chair. 2.2: Discussion 2.3: Next steps Item 3: Joint Applicant Support Working Group (20 minutes) Refer to motion passed in previous meeting <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101%20> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101 Refer to action item from previous meeting: "Discuss the way forward given there are now two different charters for the JAS working group, one approved by the ALAC and one approved by the GNSO Council." 3.1: Would ALAC be open to accepting the charter as amended by the GNSO? Report from ALAC Liaison - Alan Greenberg 3.2: Discussion 3.3: Next steps Item 4: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (15 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Refer to action item from previous meeting: The Council agreed that Rosemary Sinclair would liaise with Bruce Tonkin and then the Council would consider whether it should send a letter to the Board saying the GNSO does not have the resources to undertake this work. 4.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Next steps? Item 5: Recommendations re. Registration Abuse Policy (RAP) (20 minutes) Refer to letter from RAP team<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf Refer to motion in response to the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) final report, deferred from previous meeting.(motion 1) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Vote (Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House) Item 6: Status of Stakeholder Group and Constituency statements on Recommendation 6 (10 minutes) Refer to action item from previous meeting: Compile the constituency/stakeholder group comments and submit to the Board. 6.1 Update on Rec6 CWG (Margie Milam) 6.2 Discussion and feedback from Stakeholder Groups and constituencies 6.3 Confirmation of compilation of constituency/stakeholder group comments and submission to the Board (Margie Milam) Item 7: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and new Standing Committee (20 Minutes) Refer to motion passed in Cartagena meeting (Motion 6 Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)charters). http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201012 Especially resolve clauses. RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the ICANN public meeting in June 2011. RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery. RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011, to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010 7.1 Establish Drafting Team (DT) for new Standing Committee * Volunteers? Avri Doria (NCSG) Mary Wong (NCSG) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP) Others? * DT Chair? 7.2 Update on OSC work - Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair 7.3 Update on PPSC work - Jeff Neuman, PPSC Chair 7.4 Discussion 7.5 Next steps? 7.6 Updating OSC Recommendation for Proxies in the GNSO Operating Procedures * Bill Drake has volunteered to lead * Update * Next steps Item 8: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) 8.1 Update from Staff on goals, expected outcomes and organization of GAC/Board February meeting in Brussels (Staff). 8.2 Status of San Francisco planning (Olga Cavalli). 8.3 CSG vice chair election results (Olga Cavalli) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+0DST 03:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 05:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+0DST 06:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-2+1DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 22:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Sorry you took it that way. I was being serious. I really don't think it's that hard to figure out. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, January 20, 2011 1:39 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> What's clear to you may not always be clear to everyone else. That shouldn't be hard for you to understand, and attempting to do so might prove more helpful in advancing your point of view than showing impatience at those who do not share or understand it. Stéphane Le 20 janv. 2011 à 20:23, Tim Ruiz a écrit : Hard to imagine that it isn't clear. An "ICANN mailing list for the GNSO leadership" versus "lunch"? A "meeting of the Chairs of the SO/ACs called by the CEO of ICANN" versus a "hat"? I really don't think it's all that hard. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, January 20, 2011 1:04 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, where do you draw the line between what's part of the normal day-to-day management of the Council and what needs to be voted on through a motion? I do not know how to classify "what we have for lunch" on the one hand and "what mailing list we should be creating" on the other? Stéphane Le 20 janv. 2011 à 19:14, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > I agree in part with Rosemary and Bill, that there was not enough time > between decisions on these issues for everyone to voice their opinion, > or even give it much thought. But I think the real problem is because > the appropriate way for the Council to act is through resolution. The > straw polling of the Council for these kinds of things just does not > work. > > A straw poll on what two main dishes we want for a lunch, or what kind > of hat to present a departing Councilor is fine. But otherwise, I > believe we should act through resolution only. That will alleviate any > confusion as to whether this or that actually had the support of the > Council, and it makes sure that all Councilors have the opportunity to > be fully informed and appropriately consider the decision. > > Regarding the two recent issues, I believe there is still time for such > appropriate action. Regardless of how I feel about these issues, I do > believe the will of the majority of the Council should be the deciding > factor. Acting through resolution will ensure that. > > When time does not allow for acting through resolution, I don't think > there is any one right way to deal with it except that if pursued there > should be no representation that it was a Council action or the > Council's will in any way. For example, Stephane doesn't need our > permission to arrive two days early to SF and chat with other attendees > even if they happen to be Chairs of other SO/ACs, but if he does he > cannot do so "AS" Chair of the Council or in any way imply that his > actions or statements represent the Council. It would concern me that > ICANN would likely end up paying for two additional nights. If it were > me, I would not let that happen. I guess that is for Stephane to decide. > > In regards to the list, there is no reason that it cannot wait for > appropriate resolution and action of the Council. > > Tim > >

1 0

RE: [council] Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

2 1

RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

1 0

RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Personally, I believe no motion should be considered at the meeting immediately following when it is made. It should almost always wait until the following one. BUT, if one is going to be considered at the very next meeting after it is made, the Council should have had at least 14 days to consider and vet it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:59 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Tim, The GNSO Council meets approximately every 3 weeks. If a 14 day rule is applied, motions would need to be brought during the one week period after the last GNSO Council meeting. Would that leave enough time for dialogue between meetings among councilors and allow for sufficient consultations with their respective SG/C's? Margie -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:26 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar This is basically 13-14 days. Why not just make it 14 days prior to a meeting. Then we don't have to worry about changes in the way ICANN schedules its meetings, and it's simpler to understand. Would a motion to change that be sufficient, or is more needed? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 8:29 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Cc: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I like it. Others? Stéphane Le 18 janv. 2011 à 16:00, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : > One idea that some have had is to make the motions deadline before an ICANN meeting 8 days prior to the weekend session as opposed to 8 days prior to the Council meeting. This would give ample time to discuss the motions during the weekend and during constituency/stakeholder day. This would make the motions deadline March 4th as opposed to March 8th (if my math is correct). > > Should we try that for this next meeting to test it out and see if that works? > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:44 AM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO > calendar > > > Councillors, > > FYI, following a suggestion from Jeff on our last Council Leaders' call, we have looked at adding the deadline for submitting motions and documents on our master calendar. > > The idea is, as the meetings tend to roll into each other and it's easy to loose sight of deadlines, to give us better clarity about when motions need to be submitted. > > Glen has implemented this idea and you can see the result on the calendar page (http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#jan): next deadline is shown on Jan 29. > > I hope this is useful to everyone. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > P.S.: There was talk in Cartagena of lengthening motion deadlines before a Public Council meeting. Is there still an interest in looking at this?

2 1

Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

I agree in part with Rosemary and Bill, that there was not enough time between decisions on these issues for everyone to voice their opinion, or even give it much thought. But I think the real problem is because the appropriate way for the Council to act is through resolution. The straw polling of the Council for these kinds of things just does not work. A straw poll on what two main dishes we want for a lunch, or what kind of hat to present a departing Councilor is fine. But otherwise, I believe we should act through resolution only. That will alleviate any confusion as to whether this or that actually had the support of the Council, and it makes sure that all Councilors have the opportunity to be fully informed and appropriately consider the decision. Regarding the two recent issues, I believe there is still time for such appropriate action. Regardless of how I feel about these issues, I do believe the will of the majority of the Council should be the deciding factor. Acting through resolution will ensure that. When time does not allow for acting through resolution, I don't think there is any one right way to deal with it except that if pursued there should be no representation that it was a Council action or the Council's will in any way. For example, Stephane doesn't need our permission to arrive two days early to SF and chat with other attendees even if they happen to be Chairs of other SO/ACs, but if he does he cannot do so "AS" Chair of the Council or in any way imply that his actions or statements represent the Council. It would concern me that ICANN would likely end up paying for two additional nights. If it were me, I would not let that happen. I guess that is for Stephane to decide. In regards to the list, there is no reason that it cannot wait for appropriate resolution and action of the Council. Tim

2 1

RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

This is basically 13-14 days. Why not just make it 14 days prior to a meeting. Then we don't have to worry about changes in the way ICANN schedules its meetings, and it's simpler to understand. Would a motion to change that be sufficient, or is more needed? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 8:29 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Cc: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I like it. Others? Stéphane Le 18 janv. 2011 à 16:00, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : > One idea that some have had is to make the motions deadline before an ICANN meeting 8 days prior to the weekend session as opposed to 8 days prior to the Council meeting. This would give ample time to discuss the motions during the weekend and during constituency/stakeholder day. This would make the motions deadline March 4th as opposed to March 8th (if my math is correct). > > Should we try that for this next meeting to test it out and see if that works? > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:44 AM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar > > > Councillors, > > FYI, following a suggestion from Jeff on our last Council Leaders' call, we have looked at adding the deadline for submitting motions and documents on our master calendar. > > The idea is, as the meetings tend to roll into each other and it's easy to loose sight of deadlines, to give us better clarity about when motions need to be submitted. > > Glen has implemented this idea and you can see the result on the calendar page (http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#jan): next deadline is shown on Jan 29. > > I hope this is useful to everyone. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > P.S.: There was talk in Cartagena of lengthening motion deadlines before a Public Council meeting. Is there still an interest in looking at this?

3 2

RE: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Two days for an informal meet and greet? There must be some other agenda. And what does negligible mean? IMHO, if the Chairs want to make a date and show up early to chat, etc. that's fine with me as long as 1) there is no additional cost to ICANN, meaning ZERO, and 2) it is understood that they are there in their own capacity and not acting on behalf of their SO/AC. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 9:50 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Councillors, FYI, Rod is inviting the SO and AC Chairs to a 2-day meeting prior to the ICANN SF meeting. The idea is to have informal discussions and to help the SO and AC Chairs get to know each other better. I have not agreed to going yet, but have asked what the cost of the meeting would be, which part of the ICANN meeting this would come from, whether the meeting would be official? I am told the additional costs would be negligible and part of the ICANN meeting budget. If anyone is opposed to me going, please say so. Thanks, Stéphane

6 6