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.

 

 

---

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM
To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
Importance: High

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

---

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter

Hi

On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:

 

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:

1. 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.

2. 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