I agree with Stephane and support his suggestion. I think the Council should put in at least a brief communication about the preliminary report rather than say nothing at this point - although a few Board members are (as Tim mentioned) very well aware of the state of things, it would be preferable if the whole Board and the community can receive something from us, however short or bland. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
When a request is made, I make it a practice to respond even if there is not much to say. Of course, if the Council does not want me to respond, I won't.
Chuck
----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Rosette,Kristina <krosette@cov.com>; Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@icann.org>; Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>; Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sent: Mon Jul 19 19:13:18 2010 Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
Communicate what? That we have nothing to communicate? I don't see
point. New gTLDs are the biggest project Staff is currently working on and VI is the biggest open issue of it. At least two, and I think more, Board members follow the list closely and even join the calls. Believe, they know exactly where we are.
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@verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:09 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
So what are we debating? Shouldn't we communicate that? I am not suggesting anything different. But I have become real gun shy about sending any communication as chair without Council approval.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:01 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
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
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@verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:20 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@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
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
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@verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:57 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@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@verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen@icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@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
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
of 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
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC:<tim@godaddy.com>, <krosette@cov.com>, <Glen@icann.org>, <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 7/20/2010 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 We might just want to think about communicating something as a response to the initial report that the VI WG will put before us, but holding up on any vote until we can either get nearly all council members in attendance or we get a final report from the WG. If we do decide to take this path, perhaps a couple of sentences in the minutes and we ask Glen to inform the Board secretariat accordingly? This way, we both do our job as custodians of the policy process in informing the Board of our current progress and we don't go overboard in acting on the WG's prelim report. Thoughts? Stéphane Le 20 juil. 2010 à 01:27, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : the they their the process that
occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@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
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
Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read
report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it would be unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any
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@cov.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many
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
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@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
> > > 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@icann.org> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am > To: Council GNSO <council@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
> > Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no later
minimum policy. The the public people the 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. 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." 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@gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > >
Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
