I agree this is something we should discuss. I also have concerns, but those are more to do with my own understanding of the way the Council should act, and the challenges to that that Jeff's note brings. Of particular interest to me is his assertion that Council should put out this motion for public comment. I do not recall ever seeing Council's ability to act on properly submitted motions (such as this one) without first putting said motion out for public comment questioned in this way. If I understand Jeff's meaning correctly, he is suggesting that Council's decision-making process be slowed down to include, at every step, the possibility for public comment. While I understand the rationale, I think that Council is tasked with leading the GNSO and that doing what I understand Jeff to be suggesting would render Council ineffective in doing so. There is plenty of opportunity for community input built into the Council procedures as is, I don't think that our motions should be put out to public comment before we vote on them. What would that mean to our timelines anyway? That we would submit a motion, then wait 30 days for public comments, then have staff process them, then read the process report, then discuss the motion again...? I respect Jeff's opinion greatly, and think that he is able to provide the Council with input that we should take on board, not least because of his heavy involvement in the GNSO restructure effort which has undoubtedly given him a great deal of clarity of vision into our processes. But I am wary of what I understand Jeff to be suggesting here, because I think it will effectively stall Council function. I am copying Jeff so that he may correct me if I have understood what he is suggesting incorrectly. Stéphane Le 20 mai 2010 à 09:33, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :

I've not yet process concerns. But we should try to solve the procedural issue in general.

Regards Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2010 22:00 An: tim@godaddy.com; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Motion from IDNG

It is now.

I have similar process concerns. I also have substance concerns.

------Original Message------ From: Tim Ruiz To: GNSO Council ReplyTo: Tim Ruiz Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG Sent: May 19, 2010 3:52 PM

Chuck,

Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter from Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and understand others' thoughts on it.

Tim

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@registry.asia>, <council@gnso.icann.org>

I agree with Avri's response.

Chuck

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG

Hi Kristina, Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document:

Hi Edmon -

On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

...

Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is the applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement between the applicant and the operator of the prior string?

My single person opinion.

I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended panel. Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the same entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether

------Original Message Truncated------