- council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?
by Grant Forsyth 13 Jul '03

13 Jul '03

Milton Thanks for being frank in your personal view. It does not surprise me that all elected representatives of a constituency vote in the same way - hopefully in line with their constituency determined stand on an issue. For an elected member to vote against the policy position their constituency had decided to adopt, would likely be unacceptable to the constituency - regardless of the region the GNSO representative comes from. However, to focus simply on the voting on GNSO Council of constituency members misses the argument as to the desirability of the greater regional diversity that 3 versus 2 constituency representatives bring. In a well functioning constituency, the GNSO representatives perform a number of roles including bringing to the GNSO discussions their culturally diverse experiences, contributing that diversity to discussions, task forces and work groups and bringing back to their constituency their perspective - again, enriched by their particular diverse cultural experience - for discussion within the constituency in the process of determining a constituency policy position. Hopefully you have experienced this diversity and enriched perspective in the consultation that NCUC reps have engaged in between the matters and discussions of the GNSO Council and the NCUC constituency policy determination process? I for one, not withstanding that some on Council might wish to offensively "lump" me into a general category of "white middle class male", consider that my experiences are different to those of my NA and EU colleagues. I hope that my experiences, and those from others around the world, contribute value in the discussions that are held on Council. Besides the benefits of greater cultural diversity, the other major benefit of 3 versus 2 constituency reps, is the acknowledgement that for most of us ICANN is job in addition to our day jobs and hence we are quite constrained in the time that we can devote to ICANN. For that reason, having 2 rather than just 1 representative colleague to share the work and available for reflection on GNSO Council matters, is crucial. You can see that like Ken and others, I think this is an issue that needs to be given proper consideration by Council in sufficient time to be put before the Board to ensure that they can properly consider the issues and make a determination such that the individual constituency elections will not be disrupted through uncertainty. Bruce, I look forward to this being on the Council agenda - if not on 17 July, then at our next meeting. Regards Grant Forsyth Business Constituency Rep -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, 13 July, 2003 10:05 To: council(a)dnso.org; Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au Subject: [council] 3 Council members or 2? While we are weighing in on the 3 members per constituency issue, I may as well make it clear that I and most NCUC members I have talked to prefer to remain with the current plan to have only two GNSO Council representatives per constituency. In part, this stems from NCUC's own unique situation, in which we have rarely been able to generate regular and informed participation by all three GNSO Council members. We look forward with relief to the prospect of only needing two members to devote so much time to GNSO Council activities. But we believe the argument applies equally well to the other constituencies, because we note that in almost all cases (the only exception typically being the NCUC, which is actually has the most diversified interests) all three representatives vote the same way. What, then, is the point of having three representatives? If I saw the AF or LAC-region members of the ISPCC, CBUC, IPCC, registrars or gTLD registries consistently voting differently from the NA or EU-region members, I would feel differently about this. But the record shows that invariably the commercial constituencies vote the same way regardless of what region they are from on every significant issue. --MM

1 0

3 Council members or 2?
by Milton Mueller 13 Jul '03

13 Jul '03

While we are weighing in on the 3 members per constituency issue, I may as well make it clear that I and most NCUC members I have talked to prefer to remain with the current plan to have only two GNSO Council representatives per constituency. In part, this stems from NCUC's own unique situation, in which we have rarely been able to generate regular and informed participation by all three GNSO Council members. We look forward with relief to the prospect of only needing two members to devote so much time to GNSO Council activities. But we believe the argument applies equally well to the other constituencies, because we note that in almost all cases (the only exception typically being the NCUC, which is actually has the most diversified interests) all three representatives vote the same way. What, then, is the point of having three representatives? If I saw the AF or LAC-region members of the ISPCC, CBUC, IPCC, registrars or gTLD registries consistently voting differently from the NA or EU-region members, I would feel differently about this. But the record shows that invariably the commercial constituencies vote the same way regardless of what region they are from on every significant issue. --MM

2 1

RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference schedule d for 17 July 2003?
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com 12 Jul '03

12 Jul '03

Bruce I concur with your proposal to cancel, but ask you to note the need to consider the 3 members per constituency issue at the August meeting as recently raised by Ken Stubbs. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 11 July 2003 10:12 To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? Hello All, We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003. (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html). I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have: - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey on this yet) - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN staff yet) - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN management of GNSO website and secretariat) - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since Montreal) We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage (7 days prior to the meeting). I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003. In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the outcome of the deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting. Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting on 17 July 2003. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair

1 0

RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference schedule d for 17 July 2003?
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com 12 Jul '03

12 Jul '03

Ken I think you make some excellent points. This is also viewed as an extremely important issue for the ISPCP and I fully endorse the action you propose. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net] Sent: 11 July 2003 13:11 To: council(a)dnso.org; Bruce Tonkin Subject: Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? Bruce & fellow council members... I am in support of Bruce's suggestions but like to remind the council that one item that should be vetted very soon is a follow-up on the names council recommendation to the board to continue to keep the size of the council at 3 members per constituency.. given the normal ICANN lead times, this issue needs to be dealt with soon enough so that the board has adequate time to deal with this issue. in my personal opinion, the council has, over the last 6 months , worked much more efficiently and, given the current geo-political environment we are operating in, as well as some of the very sensitive issues before us (such as privacy), it is increasing important that the council maintain continued broad global inclusiveness & balance. at the time that the new by-laws were being formulated we were given commitments that our concerns about this issue would be given serious re-consideration by the board . given that all the constituencies must hold elections this fall for council member vacancies, i personally feel that this issue needs to be dealt with ASAP. I certainly am not proposing that this be dealt with in a July meeting but it definitely needs to be on the august agenda and i would hope that between now & the august meeting we could come up with a proposal & formal council action to be reaffirmed by vote in the august meeting.. i would appreciate additional input on this topic from other council members best wishes ken stubbs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> To: <council(a)dnso.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:11 AM Subject: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? > Hello All, > > We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003. (see > http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html). > > I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have: > - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO > recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey > on this yet) > - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN > staff yet) > - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN > management of GNSO website and secretariat) > - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since > Montreal) > > We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this > stage (7 days prior to the meeting). > > I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, > and plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003. > > In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy > Steering group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul > Twomey regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP > report (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the > outcome of the deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN > and the GAC to ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at > its next meeting. > > Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a > meeting on 17 July 2003. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > Chair > >

1 0

Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
by Milton Mueller 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

You have my support for canceling the teleconference. >>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> 07/11/03 05:11AM >>> Hello All, We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003. (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html). I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have: - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey on this yet) - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN staff yet) - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN management of GNSO website and secretariat) - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since Montreal) We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage (7 days prior to the meeting). I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003. In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the outcome of the deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting. Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting on 17 July 2003. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair

1 0

RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

Ken, Thanks for putting this issue back before Council. I personally support the need to work on this, and on behalf of my other BC members, who due to time zones, may not have seen this, this remains a high priority to the BC membership. Regards, Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:11 AM To: council(a)dnso.org; Bruce Tonkin Subject: Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? Bruce & fellow council members... I am in support of Bruce's suggestions but like to remind the council that one item that should be vetted very soon is a follow-up on the names council recommendation to the board to continue to keep the size of the council at 3 members per constituency.. given the normal ICANN lead times, this issue needs to be dealt with soon enough so that the board has adequate time to deal with this issue. in my personal opinion, the council has, over the last 6 months , worked much more efficiently and, given the current geo-political environment we are operating in, as well as some of the very sensitive issues before us (such as privacy), it is increasing important that the council maintain continued broad global inclusiveness & balance. at the time that the new by-laws were being formulated we were given commitments that our concerns about this issue would be given serious re-consideration by the board . given that all the constituencies must hold elections this fall for council member vacancies, i personally feel that this issue needs to be dealt with ASAP. I certainly am not proposing that this be dealt with in a July meeting but it definitely needs to be on the august agenda and i would hope that between now & the august meeting we could come up with a proposal & formal council action to be reaffirmed by vote in the august meeting.. i would appreciate additional input on this topic from other council members best wishes ken stubbs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> To: <council(a)dnso.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:11 AM Subject: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? > Hello All, > > We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003. > (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html). > > I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have: > - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO > recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey > on this yet) > - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN > staff yet) > - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN > management of GNSO website and secretariat) > - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since > Montreal) > > We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage > (7 days prior to the meeting). > > I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and > plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003. > > In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering > group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey > regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report > (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the outcome of the > deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to > ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting. > > Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting > on 17 July 2003. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > Chair > >

1 0

RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
by ROESCH, LYNDA 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

I agree. -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:48 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? I am comfortable with canceling the July teleconference of Council. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@schlund.de] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:57 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? I second this motion. tom Am 11.07.2003 schrieb Bruce Tonkin: > Hello All, > > We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003. > (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html). > > I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have: > - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO > recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey > on this yet) > - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN > staff yet) > - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN > management of GNSO website and secretariat) > - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since > Montreal) > > We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage > (7 days prior to the meeting). > > I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and > plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003. > > In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering > group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey > regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report > (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the outcome of the > deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to > ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting. > > Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting > on 17 July 2003. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > Chair > > Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w ***************************************************************** This email has been scanned by MailMax. http://www.maximizeit.net ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (1-800-934-3477) or by electronic mail (netadmin(a)dinslaw.com) immediately. *****************************************************************

3 2

RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

I am comfortable with canceling the July teleconference of Council. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@schlund.de] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:57 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003? I second this motion. tom Am 11.07.2003 schrieb Bruce Tonkin: > Hello All, > > We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003. > (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html). > > I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have: > - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO > recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey > on this yet) > - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN > staff yet) > - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN > management of GNSO website and secretariat) > - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since > Montreal) > > We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage > (7 days prior to the meeting). > > I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and > plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003. > > In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering > group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey > regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report > (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the outcome of the > deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to > ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting. > > Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting > on 17 July 2003. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > Chair > > Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

2 1

Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
by Bruce Tonkin 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

Hello All, We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003. (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html). I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have: - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey on this yet) - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN staff yet) - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN management of GNSO website and secretariat) - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since Montreal) We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage (7 days prior to the meeting). I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003. In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the outcome of the deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting. Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting on 17 July 2003. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair

3 2