First of all, let's not submit the comments until we
resolve this in some way.
I think there are three things we can do that I talk
about below:
-
Submit the comments as is with the statement and the
brackets
-
Remove the sentence from the comments
-
Leave the sentence but remove the brackets.
In our meeting yesterday, we approved the letter with the
statement in brackets, so we probably do not need any additional action to
do option 1; if we do this we can literally leave it as is, which is what
we approved, or add a footnote to explain the brackets, maybe
something like this: "There was not unanimous support for including this
sentence."
If we choose options 2 or 3, I believe we should insert a
footnote that explains what was done and why.
The comments are due by 10
February, which is 8 days before our next meeting, so we need to resolve this
before then. To get that process started, it might help to get a sense of
where varous Councilors are on this. To do that, I would like to ask as
many Councilors as possible to respond on this list to the following:
Based on the responses
received, we can then discuss how to reach final
resolution.
Whatever we do, I think it
is important to understand that the bracketed statement is accurate so it is not
a matter of accuracy but rather a matter of whether we want to say it or
not.
Chuck
Hi
Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday
inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a motion
accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets:
[This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the
drafting team, so TBD: “It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay
fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities.”]
Sorry, missed that. So what do we do?
Bill
On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I disagree with the characterization and it will likely
be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless,
I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker
with it later.
ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD
registrars and registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue.
It is a well established fact. At-Large members pay fees via
registrars and do not contribute anything directly.
I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if
you want to leave it fine.
We really need to send this out now, even if more
edits are needed later.
Chuck
Hi
One small edit: in the penultimative
para, 1st sentence should read: "...it is important..."
Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors
around..
On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Nice job Bill. Two minor,
nonmaterial edits:
-
In the 1st sentence of the second
paragraph, change "literatures" to
"literature".
But I'm
referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of
thought. Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one
literature mentioned would have led to a different conclusion.
-
The first
sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each
relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability
and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." I
think it should say, "Fourth, selecting
just one member from each of
the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security,
Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially
problematic."
Ditto
the above
I approve this draft and suggest that
Bill send to it to the Council list as soon as possible with a
request that all Councilors forward it to their respective groups
immediately for review and discussion, noting that the Council will
have to finalize the comments on 28
January.
Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address
Kristina's points:
On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Apologies for belated comments.
This looks great. Many thanks to you all for drafting.
I have two questions: 1) What is
the point we are trying to make regarding alternates? Are we
simply raising the possibility without taking a
position? I was not entirely clear on
that.
Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but
nobody really argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can
readily imagine objections to/issues with the approach. Moreover,
if there were alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but
still...) that this makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less
important. So the wording was intended to put the idea on the
table as something that might be considered without implying it might be
a substitute for multiple slots. If people think it doesn't work
and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do
that, let me know.
2) Are we comfortable that the
90% number is correct? I ask only b/c I would have thought that
persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for
more.
I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and
suggestion. Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants)
in both GNSO and ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces,
and some people are nominally represented by both even if they're not
active participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive boxes
doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky from some
perspectives...Thoughts?
Bill
***********************************************************
William J.
Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for
International Governance
Graduate Institute of International
and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@graduateinstitute.chwww.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************