MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 18 November, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20101118-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#nov Happy Listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Colleagues, As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share: 1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the 3 motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease. And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too. I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena. 2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough to discuss their questionmarks. In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG. 3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see the Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively. The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
I agree with Wolf-Ulrich on all points. Great email! Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 8:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010 Colleagues, As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share: 1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the 3 motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease. And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too. I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena. 2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough to discuss their questionmarks. In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG. 3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see the Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively. The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Hi Wolf-Ulrich, On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the 3 motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless in this regard.
And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too.
Undoubtedly these can always be better
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena.
2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks.
I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs. But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing signal?
3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see the Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve balance than to create a separate group?
The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency.
Thanks much, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments. Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation. That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with. If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can achieve the outcomes that everyone wants. We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council. Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way. Thanks, Stéphane Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the 3 motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless in this regard.
And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too.
Undoubtedly these can always be better
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena.
2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks.
I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs. But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing signal?
3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see the Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve balance than to create a separate group?
The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency.
Thanks much,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
Hi Stéphane On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI. Must be my English.
That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion endorses.
We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no? BD
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the 3 motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless in this regard.
And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too.
Undoubtedly these can always be better
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena.
2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks.
I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs. But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing signal?
3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see the Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve balance than to create a separate group?
The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency.
Thanks much,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
BD
Depends on what we're trying to do. But I expect there would be changes that would need to go back to through the OSC's team yes. Stéphane
I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the GCOT or not. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: <KnobenW@telekom.de>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
Hi Stéphane
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI. Must be my English.
That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or
others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion endorses.
We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see
if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
BD
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de>
<KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the
3
motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless in this regard.
And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too.
Undoubtedly these can always be better
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena.
2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks.
I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs. But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing signal?
3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see
the
Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve balance than to create a separate group?
The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency.
Thanks much,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
Chuck, Bill, and Stephane, This is on the agenda for the OSC for its meeting on Sunday the 5th in Cartagena. Might I suggest that you suggest some specific changes for the OSC to consider? I have attached the document in redline and clean versions if this might be of interest to you. You could modify the text if you wished, or suggest changes or raise issues in an email. If the OSC had these suggestions prior to Cartagena it would help to prepare them for the discussion and to determine how to proceed. Thank you. Best regards, Julie On 11/19/10 8:43 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@VERISIGN.COM> wrote:
I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the GCOT or not.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: <KnobenW@telekom.de>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
Hi Stéphane
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI. Must be my English.
That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or
others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion endorses.
We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see
if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
BD
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de>
<KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the
3
motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless in this regard.
And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too.
Undoubtedly these can always be better
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena.
2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks.
I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs. But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing signal?
3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see
the
Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve balance than to create a separate group?
The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency.
Thanks much,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
Thanks Julie. I'll put together an informal mailing list of the people that have said they were willing to work on this and get the process started. So far I have Bill, Mary, Wolf... Please let me know if I have left someone off. Thanks, Stéphane Le 19 nov. 2010 à 16:06, Julie Hedlund a écrit :
Chuck, Bill, and Stephane,
This is on the agenda for the OSC for its meeting on Sunday the 5th in Cartagena. Might I suggest that you suggest some specific changes for the OSC to consider? I have attached the document in redline and clean versions if this might be of interest to you. You could modify the text if you wished, or suggest changes or raise issues in an email. If the OSC had these suggestions prior to Cartagena it would help to prepare them for the discussion and to determine how to proceed.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Julie
On 11/19/10 8:43 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@VERISIGN.COM> wrote:
I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the GCOT or not.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: <KnobenW@telekom.de>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
Hi Stéphane
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI. Must be my English.
That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or
others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion endorses.
We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see
if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
BD
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de>
<KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the
3
motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless in this regard.
And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too.
Undoubtedly these can always be better
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena.
2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks.
I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs. But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing signal?
3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see
the
Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve balance than to create a separate group?
The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency.
Thanks much,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
<GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 2010 redline.doc><GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 2010 clean.doc>
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: <KnobenW@telekom.de>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
Hi Stéphane
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI. Must be my English.
That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you
or others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion endorses.
We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to
see if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
BD
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de>
<KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of
the 3
motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
Why would that be the result? As we discussed in the chat space during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI motion should pass next time. I guess I am fearless in this regard.
And it is an indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG level have to be improved, too.
Undoubtedly these can always be better
I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role" meeting in Cartagena.
2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough
to discuss their questionmarks.
I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern about it. That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it. It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
In this case normally a request for delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs. But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well). And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway. Wouldn't delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing signal?
3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to
see the
Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment. Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with
My apologies that I had to drop off the call and so could not participate live in the discussion of this motion. I volunteer to work with Stephane and others on amending the GCOT language, including either the elimination or at least the very substantial streamlining of the DOI procedure. I agree with Tim that this is something we ought to be able to do at Council level, as managers of GNSO work processes, and, as Chuck says, the OSC can weigh in on whether our changes need to go back to the GCOT. For the sake of clarity, I should add also that I agree the previously-recommended DOI procedures were unmanageable and incredibly cumbersome. While it would likely be ideal to eliminate them entirely from the Operating Procedures, I was very recently asked by an NCSG constituent whether the Council had checked that all the language - including having a DOI procedure - was consistent with the original BGC report, and if not, whether we thought we had sufficiently deliberated the implications of any diversion from the BGC's recommendations. As Stephane noted, these and other points of discussion ought ideally to have been raised and debated prior to the motion being called for a vote. I am glad Bill raised the issue he did, and wish I could have done the same in respect of all the Operating Procedures. While the outcome of yesterday's vote may have been unfortunate in some ways, I think that it is possible to have these issues discussed at greater length than they have been, and even that improved language and amendments - as well as a possible motion broadly acceptable to most - be presented to Council and the community soon. Let's get started and get agreement on the Operating Procedures soon; I'm sure we will all be relieved when that is no longer a continued agenda item for the Council! Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To:"William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> CC:<KnobenW@telekom.de>, <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 11/19/2010 8:46 AM Subject: RE: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010 I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the GCOT or not. Chuck -
here I
join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve balance than to create a separate group?
The JAS WG should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other matters of urgency.
Thanks much,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
participants (8)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Glen de Saint Géry -
Gomes, Chuck -
Julie Hedlund -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary Wong -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake