As I understand the plans, all constituencies
can substitute members for elected councilors.
It would be good to have any of the
councilors on the phone/conference to the extent possible – even if not
for the full time slot [the BC certainly doesn’t expect Grant and Philip
to be on the call for both full days if they are not here in person].I understand
that Glen is arranging for dial out/or dial in, recognizing the expense to a
councilor to dial in for several hours.
Since I’m organizing logistics with
Glen for the meeting, I wanted to just note that we should have a very well
developed agenda, and keep to it, so that councilors – remote – can
pick and choose their times on the call.
For instance, for presentations from
various parties, councilors might choose to read the transcript, rather than
stay online for 3 hours. But choose to be online while there is a discussion of
policy options.
Etc.
Marilyn
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes@bt.com
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006
5:51 PM
To: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com;
marilynscade@hotmail.com; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc:
bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding
meeting in
Bruce/Marilyn
Seeing Marilyn’s note below I thought it appropriate to
advise you that the timeframe set for the
Within the ISPCP there are no perceived problems in allowing
formally agreed representatives to speak for the Constituency, so I hope that
will be taken into consideration as rules are defined for that meeting.
Regards
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: 10 February 2006 22:49
To: 'Council GNSO'
Cc: 'bruce
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding
meeting in
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
>
>
>
>