Dear Bruce,
I respectfully request that some portion of the
I'd ask that we set aside a minimum of 2 hours for this discussion and
that we give special attention to the timing of that discussion so that the New
Zealand BC representative and any other of time zone challenged councilors who
are committed to dial in for a segment or two of the meeting, are not terribly
disadvantaged.
I leave time management/translations to our capable Secretariat.
Here is my concern:
I note that when I made the motion FOR the meeting, I specifically
asked that we address this set of issues. Subsequently, the Chair posted a suggestion
that we address two topics in the meeting. I fully supported that. However, somehow
the meeting has morphed into only addressing the new gTLD policy development PDP,
and I strongly prefer to have a set amount of the time focused on the second and
time sensitive PDP just agreed.
I would expect we will be approving the relevant ToR on the Council
call on 2/16, so a 2 hour discussion on methods, how to best proceed, etc. seems
critical to include in the working group/session in
To accommodate that many councilors are not going to be in person, we
could identify/explore options for organizing the work, and the various approaches
of how to best progress the work, any needed information or resources, etc. and
post them for discussion on the Council list. Time lines for completing the work
should also be discussed.
I have a concrete proposal for how to manage the work and I’d
propose that others give thought as well to options: I propose that the
second PDP be worked as a modified TF. I had previously supported the Council
working as a Committee of the Whole of Council. However, I've spoken with
several councilors, and I suggest that following adaptation:
Create a Council working group all councilors, but, allow each
Constituency to substitute
Constituency members for Councilors, so long as there is a minimum of one
councilor from each constituency, for a total of three per constituency. Other
members would be the liaisons from the ACs, and the NomComm members.
Rationale: The two PDPs are quite interlinked, and it is essential for
the full understanding of the Council of the discussions and examinations of
the policy issues on PDP on contractual issues in existing registry contracts [or
whatever we call it] and of the policy issues and explorations being undertaken
in new GTLD policy PDP.
I understand that some constituencies may want to appoint constituency
members, but that may not the case for all constituencies... and this will allow
flexibility.
Also, should some constituencies want to have three reps, and some only
two, or even one, that can be balanced by simply giving all constituencies the
same number of votes on the Council Working Group/TF. As we all recall, votes
are singular, and not “weighted” in the PDP working process.
Marilyn Cade
BC Councilor
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:43 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Regarding meeting in
Hello,
--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in
>
> development process. The Committee is of the whole Council,
but
> where a
> Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person
from
> their constituency to participate. The
constituency/Council
> member
> should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to
> the
> meeting.
>
I have also understood that each constituency could send up to 3
delegates to the meeting - is that correct? is this also a feature of
the "Committee of the whole Council", or was it part of the
earlier
D.C meeting package :) or formula?
Mawaki
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>