From:	"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To:	"William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
CC:	<KnobenW@telekom.de>, <council@gnso.icann.org>
Date:	11/19/2010 8:46 AM
Subject:	RE: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010

I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the GCOT or not.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: <KnobenW@telekom.de>; council@gnso.icann.org
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference,
> Thursday 28 October 2010
>
>
> Hi Stéphane
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>
> > Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
> >
> > Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there
> was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem
> to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
>
> Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior
> and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI. Must be my
> English.
> >
> > That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
> the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects
> of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
> >
> > If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or
> others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can
> achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
>
> Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion
> endorses.
> >
> > We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see
> if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
> >
> > Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
>
> Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make
> it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
>
> BD
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> > Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
> >>
> >> On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de>
> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Colleagues,
> >>>
> >>> As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some
> >>> observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
> >>>
> >>> 1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy
> >>> development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the
> 3
> >>> motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I
> fear
> >>> volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
> >>
> >> Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space
> during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said
> fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut
> down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless
> in this regard.
> >>
> >>> And it is an
> >>> indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation
> on SG
> >>> level have to be improved, too.
> >>
> >> Undoubtedly these can always be better
> >>
> >>> I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council
> role"
> >>> meeting in Cartagena.
> >>>
> >>> 2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the
> discussion
> >>> weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time
> enough
> >>
> >>> to discuss their questionmarks.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had
> limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised
> GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council
> list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG
> that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted
> against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
> >>
> >>> In this case normally a request for
> >>> delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the
> >>> motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a
> signal
> >>> to the community very different from just rejecting the motion.
> Maybe
> >>> that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
> >>
> >> The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we
> want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone
> in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs.
> But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed
> too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially.
> (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's
> reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have
> provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't
> then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't
> delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more
> confusing signal?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see
> the
> >>> Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment.
> >>> Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with -
> here I
> >>> join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task
> for a
> >>> separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
> >>
> >> How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to
> achieve balance than to create a separate group?
> >>
> >>> The JAS WG
> >>> should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given
> the
> >>> opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to
> be
> >>> defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with
> >>> outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to
> other
> >>> matters of urgency.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks much,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ***********************************************************
> >> William J. Drake
> >> Senior Associate
> >> Centre for International Governance
> >> Graduate Institute of International and
> >> Development Studies
> >> Geneva, Switzerland
> >> william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
> >> www.williamdrake.org
> >> ***********************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>