[new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all, The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions. There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them. Thank you. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
Ayden I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Dear all, The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions. There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them. Thank you. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email. If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you! Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
Ayden, I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example. While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example). Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Ayden I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019463585&sdata=RQgLSLKW1yUoSSewiszby2j1sZU7SSa%2BzVp66NTnV2c%3D&reserved=0> http://blacknight.blog/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblacknight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019463585&sdata=Lbq5SVc9aB1j4%2F33QC0BUcLeGpV2L8su3Uk4XWYxr2o%3D&reserved=0> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichele.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019473593&sdata=Vxnt0oJWTTjxEIy3V2D1dPpl3%2Fdl0nQ4gjWRnyq9i7U%3D&reserved=0> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019473593&sdata=UpJDcP6kr13afqiUQh6v%2BEqkAENYyfg%2FHCNHllwQnoE%3D&reserved=0> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Dear all, The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions. There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them. Thank you. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email. If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you! Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi Paul, Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow. I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO. That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already. In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members. But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Ayden,
I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.
While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).
Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.
Best, Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Ayden
I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all,
The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.
There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.
Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
--------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Ayden, The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council. My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment. On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission. Rubens
Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> escreveu:
Hi Paul,
Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow.
I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO.
That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already.
In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members.
But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Ayden,
I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.
While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).
Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.
Best, Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Ayden
I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackni...> http://blacknight.blog/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblacknight.b...> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichele.blo...> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting...> -------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all,
The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.
There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.
Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Rubens, Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference. I will await input and direction from Council leadership. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ayden,
The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council. My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment.
On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission.
Rubens
Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> escreveu:
Hi Paul,
Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow.
I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO.
That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already.
In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members.
But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Ayden,
I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.
While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).
Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.
Best, Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Ayden
I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all,
The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.
There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.
Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
--------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Thanks all. I will take the action to review and possibly re-draft the comment. If anyone else has views on this draft, please advise ASAP. Regards, Keith From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:36 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Rubens, Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference. I will await input and direction from Council leadership. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Ayden, The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council. My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment. On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission. Rubens Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> escreveu: Hi Paul, Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow. I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO. That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already. In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members. But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Ayden, I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example. While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example). Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Ayden I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019463585&sdata=RQgLSLKW1yUoSSewiszby2j1sZU7SSa%2BzVp66NTnV2c%3D&reserved=0> http://blacknight.blog/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblacknight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019463585&sdata=Lbq5SVc9aB1j4%2F33QC0BUcLeGpV2L8su3Uk4XWYxr2o%3D&reserved=0> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichele.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019473593&sdata=Vxnt0oJWTTjxEIy3V2D1dPpl3%2Fdl0nQ4gjWRnyq9i7U%3D&reserved=0> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C85d80643ffde4115afdc08d68c44765a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636850623019473593&sdata=UpJDcP6kr13afqiUQh6v%2BEqkAENYyfg%2FHCNHllwQnoE%3D&reserved=0> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Dear all, The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions. There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them. Thank you. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email. If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you! Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hello Keith, I suggest that at first we find items, which cause disagreement among Councilors (skipping possibility to submit comments does not seem good to me, it will be loss of a high quality text, on which SCBO members have spent large amounts of valuable time). May be we could ask Councilors to send items (bits of text) with which they can not agree? So we could start finding the agreeable wording (for example, replacement of 'instead of cutting back on staff expenditure' to reference to the fact that it undermines ICANN Mission / Commitments (in particular (iv) ) and thus should not be used as a method... or something like it ) Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 7 Feb 2019, at 00:14, Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Thanks all.
I will take the action to review and possibly re-draft the comment. If anyone else has views on this draft, please advise ASAP.
Regards,
Keith
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:36 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Rubens,
Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference.
I will await input and direction from Council leadership.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ayden,
The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council.
My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment.
On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission.
Rubens
Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> escreveu:
Hi Paul,
Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow.
I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO.
That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already.
In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members.
But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Ayden,
I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.
While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).
Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.
Best, Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Ayden
I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all,
The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.
There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.
Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Thanks Maxim. I think that trying to collect bits and pieces from each Councilor will actually slow down the process. Instead, I recommend that Keith proceed along the lines that he suggests, which is Keith reviewing it to cut out things which do not fall squarely within the GNSO Council's remit and then cutting further into those things which, while they may fall within the Council's remit, are not things which have been discussed and decided by the Council. What is left should very likely be acceptable with only a few tweaks (if any). Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:13 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Hello Keith, I suggest that at first we find items, which cause disagreement among Councilors (skipping possibility to submit comments does not seem good to me, it will be loss of a high quality text, on which SCBO members have spent large amounts of valuable time). May be we could ask Councilors to send items (bits of text) with which they can not agree? So we could start finding the agreeable wording (for example, replacement of 'instead of cutting back on staff expenditure' to reference to the fact that it undermines ICANN Mission / Commitments (in particular (iv) ) and thus should not be used as a method... or something like it ) Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 7 Feb 2019, at 00:14, Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Thanks all.
I will take the action to review and possibly re-draft the comment. If anyone else has views on this draft, please advise ASAP.
Regards,
Keith
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:36 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Rubens,
Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference.
I will await input and direction from Council leadership.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ayden,
The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council.
My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment.
On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission.
Rubens
Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> escreveu:
Hi Paul,
Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow.
I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO.
That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already.
In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members.
But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Ayden,
I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.
While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).
Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.
Best, Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Ayden
I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b lacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba33 62d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6 36851708218025566&sdata=bFP%2BjlbaEW%2BJBshQ3j%2F0gPrEwoofkJeN%2Fl mQIEQfRxM%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackn ight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d4 0d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685 1708218035575&sdata=w8rpidbGSzShnZPCCmK%2F6N04I3pp9y%2FHm%2BnHDTSk T4Q%3D&reserved=0
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmiche le.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d 86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6368517 08218035575&sdata=d%2FB5eF00%2FtvmsL8NotDZRRNus8VbSmNCrf6tQNZCwV8% 3D&reserved=0
Some thoughts: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.h osting%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d8 6deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685170 8218035575&sdata=WjDtayo16tlR9aZXjLufaQUGH7753TGMEkbQsvv9ljg%3D&am p;reserved=0
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all,
The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.
There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.
Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhvBvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
Thanks Paul, The approach which you suggested seems to be more logical and less time consuming. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 8 Feb 2019, at 01:00, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Maxim.
I think that trying to collect bits and pieces from each Councilor will actually slow down the process. Instead, I recommend that Keith proceed along the lines that he suggests, which is Keith reviewing it to cut out things which do not fall squarely within the GNSO Council's remit and then cutting further into those things which, while they may fall within the Council's remit, are not things which have been discussed and decided by the Council. What is left should very likely be acceptable with only a few tweaks (if any).
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:13 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Hello Keith,
I suggest that at first we find items, which cause disagreement among Councilors (skipping possibility to submit comments does not seem good to me, it will be loss of a high quality text, on which SCBO members have spent large amounts of valuable time).
May be we could ask Councilors to send items (bits of text) with which they can not agree? So we could start finding the agreeable wording (for example, replacement of 'instead of cutting back on staff expenditure' to reference to the fact that it undermines ICANN Mission / Commitments (in particular (iv) ) and thus should not be used as a method... or something like it )
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 7 Feb 2019, at 00:14, Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Thanks all.
I will take the action to review and possibly re-draft the comment. If anyone else has views on this draft, please advise ASAP.
Regards,
Keith
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:36 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Rubens,
Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference.
I will await input and direction from Council leadership.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ayden,
The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council.
My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment.
On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission.
Rubens
Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> escreveu:
Hi Paul,
Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow.
I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO.
That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already.
In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members.
But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Ayden,
I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.
While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).
Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.
Best, Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Ayden
I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b lacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba33 62d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6 36851708218025566&sdata=bFP%2BjlbaEW%2BJBshQ3j%2F0gPrEwoofkJeN%2Fl mQIEQfRxM%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackn ight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d4 0d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685 1708218035575&sdata=w8rpidbGSzShnZPCCmK%2F6N04I3pp9y%2FHm%2BnHDTSk T4Q%3D&reserved=0
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmiche le.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d 86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6368517 08218035575&sdata=d%2FB5eF00%2FtvmsL8NotDZRRNus8VbSmNCrf6tQNZCwV8% 3D&reserved=0
Some thoughts: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.h osting%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d8 6deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685170 8218035575&sdata=WjDtayo16tlR9aZXjLufaQUGH7753TGMEkbQsvv9ljg%3D&am p;reserved=0
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all,
The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.
There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.
Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhvBvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
Agreed. Thanks Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:05 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Thanks Paul, The approach which you suggested seems to be more logical and less time consuming. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 8 Feb 2019, at 01:00, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Maxim. I think that trying to collect bits and pieces from each Councilor will actually slow down the process. Instead, I recommend that Keith proceed along the lines that he suggests, which is Keith reviewing it to cut out things which do not fall squarely within the GNSO Council's remit and then cutting further into those things which, while they may fall within the Council's remit, are not things which have been discussed and decided by the Council. What is left should very likely be acceptable with only a few tweaks (if any). Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:13 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Hello Keith, I suggest that at first we find items, which cause disagreement among Councilors (skipping possibility to submit comments does not seem good to me, it will be loss of a high quality text, on which SCBO members have spent large amounts of valuable time). May be we could ask Councilors to send items (bits of text) with which they can not agree? So we could start finding the agreeable wording (for example, replacement of 'instead of cutting back on staff expenditure' to reference to the fact that it undermines ICANN Mission / Commitments (in particular (iv) ) and thus should not be used as a method... or something like it ) Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 7 Feb 2019, at 00:14, Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Thanks all. I will take the action to review and possibly re-draft the comment. If anyone else has views on this draft, please advise ASAP. Regards, Keith From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:36 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Rubens, Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference. I will await input and direction from Council leadership. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Ayden, The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council. My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment. On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission. Rubens Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> escreveu: Hi Paul, Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow. I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO. That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already. In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members. But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Ayden, I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example. While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example). Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Ayden I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b lacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba33 62d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6 36851708218025566&sdata=bFP%2BjlbaEW%2BJBshQ3j%2F0gPrEwoofkJeN%2Fl mQIEQfRxM%3D&reserved=0 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackn ight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d4 0d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685 1708218035575&sdata=w8rpidbGSzShnZPCCmK%2F6N04I3pp9y%2FHm%2BnHDTSk T4Q%3D&reserved=0 Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmiche le.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d 86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6368517 08218035575&sdata=d%2FB5eF00%2FtvmsL8NotDZRRNus8VbSmNCrf6tQNZCwV8% 3D&reserved=0 Some thoughts: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.h osting%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d8 6deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685170 8218035575&sdata=WjDtayo16tlR9aZXjLufaQUGH7753TGMEkbQsvv9ljg%3D&am p;reserved=0 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget Dear all, The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions. There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them. Thank you. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email. If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you! Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhvBvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
I do agree with Paul’s approach. Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2019, at 3:00 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Maxim.
I think that trying to collect bits and pieces from each Councilor will actually slow down the process. Instead, I recommend that Keith proceed along the lines that he suggests, which is Keith reviewing it to cut out things which do not fall squarely within the GNSO Council's remit and then cutting further into those things which, while they may fall within the Council's remit, are not things which have been discussed and decided by the Council. What is left should very likely be acceptable with only a few tweaks (if any).
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:13 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Hello Keith,
I suggest that at first we find items, which cause disagreement among Councilors (skipping possibility to submit comments does not seem good to me, it will be loss of a high quality text, on which SCBO members have spent large amounts of valuable time).
May be we could ask Councilors to send items (bits of text) with which they can not agree? So we could start finding the agreeable wording (for example, replacement of 'instead of cutting back on staff expenditure' to reference to the fact that it undermines ICANN Mission / Commitments (in particular (iv) ) and thus should not be used as a method... or something like it )
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 7 Feb 2019, at 00:14, Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Thanks all.
I will take the action to review and possibly re-draft the comment. If anyone else has views on this draft, please advise ASAP.
Regards,
Keith
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:36 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Rubens,
Yes, that is true - another option would be not to submit a comment - which may indeed be the Council's preference.
I will await input and direction from Council leadership.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 2:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ayden,
The alternative to redraft is not sending any comment whatsoever, including parts that are in scope for the Council.
My suggestion is for us to ask for an extension to the comment deadline, while the SCBO reworks the comment.
On what is in scope, I would go a bit beyond just PDPs and also address policy implementation, something also in the Council's mission.
Rubens
Em 6 de fev de 2019, à(s) 14:14:000, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> escreveu:
Hi Paul,
Unfortunately it will not be possible for the SCBO to re-draft this comment now. There are 48 hours until the submission deadline, and we have developed this comment over five calls and numerous conversations on our mailing list, which has had participation from all stakeholder groups on this topic since December. This comment has not changed substantially in the two weeks that a draft has been shared on the Council's mailing list. I cannot ask SCBO members to re-draft something now as I am aware some are offline or traveling today and/or tomorrow.
I was certainly under the impression that members of the SCBO had taken the comment back to their respective stakeholder group and/or constituency for feedback already, and certainly, feedback had been received and the comment re-drafted already. This might be something that individual stakeholder groups and/or constituencies want to address with their members and/or subject matter experts on the SCBO.
That said, the comment will not be submitted if there is an objection raised by a member of the Council, and I do note that Michele has objected already.
In terms of how we move forward, if the Council had small edits, I would feel comfortable resolving these over email with the SCBO, but what we are talking about here is a re-write and removal of bullet points that the SCBO has discussed, and I think that can't happen without a fuller contingency of SCBO members.
But the Council could either prepare a fresh comment that reflects the views now being expressed, or remove the language about this comment being prepared by the SCBO and trim down the existing comment to a level where the Council is comfortable with it.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:53 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Ayden,
I have the draft into the IPC for review and comment, but my initial take (and this is a personal view, not necessarily the view if the IPC), but this document goes way beyond what I thought the purpose of this Standing Committee would be. I was under the impression that this group would address those things within the purview of the GNSO Council (PDP development. Full stop.) and leave other issues to the C/SG’s. This document goes much further than that – for example, it jumps to the conclusion that the ALAC is over resourced and under representative. I’m not sure that is a Council position. In fact, I’m pretty sure that has never been in front of any of us at the table as a matter of voting. Michele’s point about Staff and Board funding is another example.
While I respect the idea behind this Standing Committee, I don’t think it can be used as a blunt instrument for us to try to excise anything that the committee members don’t particularly like about ICANN (the reference to “secret contracts” for example).
Again, the IPC may tell me something different after they have read it, but my impression is that this document needs to go back to the team for a quick redraft focusing on PDP issues.
Best, Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:05 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Ayden
I object to the comment in its current form. I do not think that singling out either Board or Staff expenditure as currently proposed is appropriate for a Council comment.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b lacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba33 62d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6 36851708218025566&sdata=bFP%2BjlbaEW%2BJBshQ3j%2F0gPrEwoofkJeN%2Fl mQIEQfRxM%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackn ight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d4 0d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685 1708218035575&sdata=w8rpidbGSzShnZPCCmK%2F6N04I3pp9y%2FHm%2BnHDTSk T4Q%3D&reserved=0
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmiche le.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d 86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C6368517 08218035575&sdata=d%2FB5eF00%2FtvmsL8NotDZRRNus8VbSmNCrf6tQNZCwV8% 3D&reserved=0
Some thoughts: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.h osting%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d8 6deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C63685170 8218035575&sdata=WjDtayo16tlR9aZXjLufaQUGH7753TGMEkbQsvv9ljg%3D&am p;reserved=0
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 3 February 2019 at 17:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] [new draft] Proposed GNSO Council Comment on FY20 ICANN Budget
Dear all,
The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has prepared a new draft of a proposed GNSO Council comment on the FY20 Budget and Operating Plan. Please find attached, both clean and redlined versions.
There are two key changes from the previous version. First, we have worked with Councilors who raised concerns around the bullet point about the fellowship program, and in this draft this language has been refined. Second, we have inserted a new bullet point calling for an upgrade to the GNSO's website to be prioritized, following the resourcing discussion at the Strategic Planning Session.
Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. If possible, please raise any concerns by 13:00 UTC on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 so that we have sufficient time to address them.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:58 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.
We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.
If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!
Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40w inston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab93 75a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhv BvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C087d7ba3362d40d86deb08d68d41225b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636851708218035575&sdata=S0dDEVKHLRMKSrw2sXhvBvjwhGG5eoq7RrMHn%2BHz3pU%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
participants (8)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
Drazek, Keith -
Erika Mann -
Marie Pattullo -
Maxim Alzoba -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Rubens Kuhl