if this be the case then we need to be judicious in selecting the day for the "committee of the whole" for new GTLD's conference calls. (Remembering that this council is composed of "volunteers" with icann staff support.) this could become a potential onerous burden on our members if we are not careful here. if that be the case, then we should consider opening up the GTLD TF to non-council members from the various constituencies.. i would become very concerned if we cannot populate the new TF calls with an adequate representation from all constituencies. Marilyn Cade wrote:

Dear Glen and fellow Councilors

Thanks for the proposed calendar.

I can make those dates, with the understanding that if the WHOIS TF continues on Tuesdays, that makes a heavy ICANN "day" on that one week each month. That is manageable, since the WHOIS TF isn't meeting every week, and undoubtedly, we could coordinate with that TF as needed to cancel that week's meeting.

Thus, this seems fine with my calendar. Marilyn

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:39 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council Members,

These are proposed dates for the GNSO Council teleconferences in January, February and March:

Tuesday 17 January 2006 19:00 UTC Tuesday 21 February 2006 19:00 UTC Tuesday 14 March 2006 19:00 UTC

PDP working calls will be placed inbetween as required.

Please let me have your comments.

Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen

Hi, I agree with your comments. As a nomcom appointee, I do tend to think of myself as a volunteer in a relatively standard sense and consider time spent on ICANN as pro-bono work as no one pays me for the time spent on it and it bears no relation to any of my research or contract funding. Yet having volunteered, I do not believe that this binds me or my time any less. Yes, I volunteered, but having done so, I have taken on the tasks and have an obligation to them, even if they become onerous. Having voted for the work items ahead of us, I feel it is incumbent on me, as much as someone who is funded by their company, to put in the required time to get the work done. I also think that we will need weekly calls with weekly action items if we intend to meet reasonable time constraints. Having said that, I think it is good if we open up some of the work to more ICANN participants and constituency members. Perhaps, even though we are working on the TLD issue as a committee of the whole, we could create some sub committees, that work of specific issues under this umbrella. a. On 15 dec 2005, at 08.45, Ross Rader wrote:

Ken - your point is well taken, my comments aren't intended to detract from this.

I'd like to underscore the need for continued outreach on behalf of each of the constituencies. Lately we've heard a fair number of concerns regarding participatory burdens. In my opinion, we are faced with a shortage of manpower - a shortage that can only be solved by increasing the depth and breadth of the membership of the constituency structure. If this issue isn't addressed, the GNSO will fail in meeting its policy objectives.

Further, I'd also like to clarify my understanding of the term "volunteer" as it relates to the vast majority of the members of the GNSO. We all represent various interests in the ICANN tent. To the extent that we represent our individual, personal interests, then the use of the term "volunteer" is indeed appropriate. However, for the rest of us, our participation is on behalf of various commercial and non-commercial interests. We advocate for their interests, and while our participation is optional, it is usually not undertaken on a true volunteer basis. This is more of a case of commercial and non-commercial benevolence - and appropriate at that.

The only instance in which this benevolence becomes volunteerism is at the point that the advocates are moved into positions within the GNSO that their capability to advocate their own interests takes a back-seat to their position - the chairs of the Council and tasks forces, council members, et al. are all required to represent the interests of aspects or all of the community and not of their sponsor.

This is a small point in the grand scheme of things, but I think its important that we are very clear, at least amongst ourselves, where our interests lie, what motivates us each, and above all else, whom is ultimately contributing to paying the bills for the activities we undertake.

Have a great holiday season everyone.

-ross

Ken Stubbs wrote:

...

if this be the case then we need to be judicious in selecting the day for the "committee of the whole" for new GTLD's conference calls. (Remembering that this council is composed of "volunteers" with icann staff support.) this could become a potential onerous burden on our members if we are not careful here. if that be the case, then we should consider opening up the GTLD TF to non-council members from the various constituencies.. i would become very concerned if we cannot populate the new TF calls with an adequate representation from all constituencies.

AT the risk of starting a debate all over again, I'll just comment that when I don't really see any real difference between those who participate, whether they are academics, or corporate employees, or nominating committee appointees. I was pleased that at least when we made the appointments, there was material in the briefing for those who self nominated that described the work expectations, so at least there was some "alert" to the work demands. :-). I think we all accept that it is challenging, for everyone. Very few day jobs have a built in allowance for all the time needed and thus, everyone ends up fitting in the ICANN work. And probably everyone feels equally stressed. :-) We are lucky to have people on the Council and in the constituencies who make that extra dedicated effort. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:18 PM To: Ross Rader Cc: Ken Stubbs; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006 Yes to both of what you're saying. We need to involve more individuals from the constituencies and GNSO community in our work. To separate my comments from those of Ross, I'd like to clarify my use of the term "volunteer," as it applies to the At Large participants (and probably many of the the Non-Commercial and Nominating-Committee appointed participants as well.) We are volunteers. This time commitment comes out of what we are doing, whether it's working in academics, local governments, consultancies or law firms. My law firm, for example, does not expect less production from me because I spend three weeks a year at ICANN meetings. For most of us, ICANN is a labor of love, but the GNSO policy work is in constant conflict with our day job and our families. (On a personal note, I recently declined a paying consulting assignment because I thought it might conflict with my obligations to represent At Large users of the Internet in the ICANN arena. I am not the only At Large participant who has declined such paid assignments.) Days and weeks with multiple GNSO meetings are difficult, especially since many participants also must interrupt sleep in order to participate. This is all to say that we need a GNSO that allows those of us whose work is not sponsored by our employers to participate on an even playing field with those who are so sponsored. To that end, we should view the entire GNSO as "volunteers," even though we know, as Ross pointed out, that the time of many participants is actually "work" time. Ross Rader wrote:

Ken - your point is well taken, my comments aren't intended to detract from this.

I'd like to underscore the need for continued outreach on behalf of each of the constituencies. Lately we've heard a fair number of concerns regarding participatory burdens. In my opinion, we are faced with a shortage of manpower - a shortage that can only be solved by increasing the depth and breadth of the membership of the constituency structure. If this issue isn't addressed, the GNSO will fail in meeting its policy objectives.

Further, I'd also like to clarify my understanding of the term "volunteer" as it relates to the vast majority of the members of the GNSO. We all represent various interests in the ICANN tent. To the extent that we represent our individual, personal interests, then the use of the term "volunteer" is indeed appropriate. However, for the rest of us, our participation is on behalf of various commercial and non-commercial interests. We advocate for their interests, and while our participation is optional, it is usually not undertaken on a true volunteer basis. This is more of a case of commercial and non-commercial benevolence - and appropriate at that.

The only instance in which this benevolence becomes volunteerism is at the point that the advocates are moved into positions within the GNSO that their capability to advocate their own interests takes a back-seat to their position - the chairs of the Council and tasks forces, council members, et al. are all required to represent the interests of aspects or all of the community and not of their sponsor.

This is a small point in the grand scheme of things, but I think its important that we are very clear, at least amongst ourselves, where our interests lie, what motivates us each, and above all else, whom is ultimately contributing to paying the bills for the activities we undertake.

Have a great holiday season everyone.

-ross