Hi, Philip thanks for getting the ball rolling. I agree we need to get to this right away. I will be he Nomcom Appointee member of the group. I understand that the staff has yet to pick the staff person who will be assigned to work with this group. Once we know who all of the members from constituencies and AC's in liasion are, we can start to arrange a schedule. I agree that we should have a first conversation next week and that a face to face meeting would be useful if we can find a time/place that fits everyones availability. It makes sense for Glen to set up a mailing list for this group as soon as possible. a. On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:04, Philip Sheppard wrote:

Fellow Councillors, the Board has spoken and as any Board does when faced with intractable issues, it has sent then back to the intractable participants to sort out ! I exaggerate, the Board has given us a 4 week window to seek a compromise ourselves and I find that positive.

I especially welcomed those Board members who commented that working on principles and objectives first is more important than the tool to implement those principles such as parity or the number of votes.

I believe we should start our WG discussions looking at options which meet the concerns of all parties, and then work out the best tools to meet them.

Avri, Glen - we need to move rapidly on this group and have its first teleconference meeting next week w/c June 30 - perhaps July 2 at 1500 UTC with weekly calls or more thereafter. I suggest also a face to face of the small WG could be useful towards its completion stage - perhaps in ICANN Brussels (or an Amsterdam Airport hotel) weekend of 12-13 July ? Sorry to be presumptuous on dates but the timetable is very tight.

I will be the BC representative. Who are the other members?

Philip

Thanks Philip. I would go one step further and suggest that we put voting structure options (e.g., 4-4-4-4, 4-4-5-3, etc.) completing OFF the table and instead start off with each constituency rep communicating what are their primary needs without any reference to number of votes per stakeholder group. For example, I think everyone knows that the RyC supports a balance between contracted and noncontracted parties, but I believe that we need to take that a step lower and communicate what it is that we are seeking that that balance provides. I believe that it would be very helpful if we could start off with an understanding of the key needs of each constituency; that will then provide a basis for thinking out of the box to find solutions that all of us can support. The first steps can be done via email: 1. Each constituency, the NomCom Reps and the ALAC need to identify their rep NLT Monday, 30 June. I believe group is working on that. 2. Establish an email list for the group. 3. Schedule the first meeting. 4. Decide who will lead the group. Should it be one of the GNSO group members or Rob or someone else? 5. If your idea and mine are accepted, each rep should work with their colleagues to define the basic principles and their needs. As I stated above, I believe that principle and need statements should be void of any mention of voting numbers. Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:04 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO reform - need to set up the schedule NOW !

Fellow Councillors, the Board has spoken and as any Board does when faced with intractable issues, it has sent then back to the intractable participants to sort out ! I exaggerate, the Board has given us a 4 week window to seek a compromise ourselves and I find that positive.

I especially welcomed those Board members who commented that working on principles and objectives first is more important than the tool to implement those principles such as parity or the number of votes.

I believe we should start our WG discussions looking at options which meet the concerns of all parties, and then work out the best tools to meet them.

Avri, Glen - we need to move rapidly on this group and have its first teleconference meeting next week w/c June 30 - perhaps July 2 at 1500 UTC with weekly calls or more thereafter. I suggest also a face to face of the small WG could be useful towards its completion stage - perhaps in ICANN Brussels (or an Amsterdam Airport hotel) weekend of 12-13 July ? Sorry to be presumptuous on dates but the timetable is very tight.

I will be the BC representative. Who are the other members?

Philip

Chuck, I fully support these suggestions. Philip --------------------------- Thanks Philip. I would go one step further and suggest that we put voting structure options (e.g., 4-4-4-4, 4-4-5-3, etc.) completing OFF the table and instead start off with each constituency rep communicating what are their primary needs without any reference to number of votes per stakeholder group. For example, I think everyone knows that the RyC supports a balance between contracted and noncontracted parties, but I believe that we need to take that a step lower and communicate what it is that we are seeking that that balance provides. I believe that it would be very helpful if we could start off with an understanding of the key needs of each constituency; that will then provide a basis for thinking out of the box to find solutions that all of us can support. The first steps can be done via email: 1. Each constituency, the NomCom Reps and the ALAC need to identify their rep NLT Monday, 30 June. I believe group is working on that. 2. Establish an email list for the group. 3. Schedule the first meeting. 4. Decide who will lead the group. Should it be one of the GNSO group members or Rob or someone else? 5. If your idea and mine are accepted, each rep should work with their colleagues to define the basic principles and their needs. As I stated above, I believe that principle and need statements should be void of any mention of voting numbers. Chuck