RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
Bruce/Marilyn Seeing Marilyn's note below I thought it appropriate to advise you that the timeframe set for the Washington meeting is proving particularly difficult for the ISPCP. Whilst we are actively pursuing options that will hopefully result in ISPCP participation, it is quite likely that none of the ISPCP Council members will be able to travel to Washington. Within the ISPCP there are no perceived problems in allowing formally agreed representatives to speak for the Constituency, so I hope that will be taken into consideration as rules are defined for that meeting. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: 10 February 2006 22:49 To: 'Council GNSO' Cc: 'bruce tonkin' Subject: RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb Dear Bruce, I respectfully request that some portion of the Washington meeting be focused on discussing the ToR and PDP for the policy issues in registry contracts, especially because there is a need to respond to existing gTLD contracts that are under discussion or posted for public comment. I'd ask that we set aside a minimum of 2 hours for this discussion and that we give special attention to the timing of that discussion so that the New Zealand BC representative and any other of time zone challenged councilors who are committed to dial in for a segment or two of the meeting, are not terribly disadvantaged. I leave time management/translations to our capable Secretariat. Here is my concern: I note that when I made the motion FOR the meeting, I specifically asked that we address this set of issues. Subsequently, the Chair posted a suggestion that we address two topics in the meeting. I fully supported that. However, somehow the meeting has morphed into only addressing the new gTLD policy development PDP, and I strongly prefer to have a set amount of the time focused on the second and time sensitive PDP just agreed. I would expect we will be approving the relevant ToR on the Council call on 2/16, so a 2 hour discussion on methods, how to best proceed, etc. seems critical to include in the working group/session in Washington. And, given the intervening days between Monday and 2/24 or 2/25, we can certainly expect each of the constituencies to consult within themselves on the options. To accommodate that many councilors are not going to be in person, we could identify/explore options for organizing the work, and the various approaches of how to best progress the work, any needed information or resources, etc. and post them for discussion on the Council list. Time lines for completing the work should also be discussed. I have a concrete proposal for how to manage the work and I'd propose that others give thought as well to options: I propose that the second PDP be worked as a modified TF. I had previously supported the Council working as a Committee of the Whole of Council. However, I've spoken with several councilors, and I suggest that following adaptation: Create a Council working group all councilors, but, allow each Constituency to substitute Constituency members for Councilors, so long as there is a minimum of one councilor from each constituency, for a total of three per constituency. Other members would be the liaisons from the ACs, and the NomComm members. Rationale: The two PDPs are quite interlinked, and it is essential for the full understanding of the Council of the discussions and examinations of the policy issues on PDP on contractual issues in existing registry contracts [or whatever we call it] and of the policy issues and explorations being undertaken in new GTLD policy PDP. I understand that some constituencies may want to appoint constituency members, but that may not the case for all constituencies... and this will allow flexibility. Also, should some constituencies want to have three reps, and some only two, or even one, that can be balanced by simply giving all constituencies the same number of votes on the Council Working Group/TF. As we all recall, votes are singular, and not "weighted" in the PDP working process. Marilyn Cade BC Councilor -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:43 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb Hello, --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in
Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy
development process. The Committee is of the whole Council, but
where a
Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from
their constituency to participate. The constituency/Council
member
should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to
the
meeting.
I have also understood that each constituency could send up to 3 delegates to the meeting - is that correct? is this also a feature of the "Committee of the whole Council", or was it part of the earlier D.C meeting package :) or formula? Mawaki
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
As I understand the plans, all constituencies can substitute members for elected councilors. It would be good to have any of the councilors on the phone/conference to the extent possible - even if not for the full time slot [the BC certainly doesn't expect Grant and Philip to be on the call for both full days if they are not here in person].I understand that Glen is arranging for dial out/or dial in, recognizing the expense to a councilor to dial in for several hours. Since I'm organizing logistics with Glen for the meeting, I wanted to just note that we should have a very well developed agenda, and keep to it, so that councilors - remote - can pick and choose their times on the call. For instance, for presentations from various parties, councilors might choose to read the transcript, rather than stay online for 3 hours. But choose to be online while there is a discussion of policy options. Etc. Marilyn _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes@bt.com Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:51 PM To: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au Subject: RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb Bruce/Marilyn Seeing Marilyn's note below I thought it appropriate to advise you that the timeframe set for the Washington meeting is proving particularly difficult for the ISPCP. Whilst we are actively pursuing options that will hopefully result in ISPCP participation, it is quite likely that none of the ISPCP Council members will be able to travel to Washington. Within the ISPCP there are no perceived problems in allowing formally agreed representatives to speak for the Constituency, so I hope that will be taken into consideration as rules are defined for that meeting. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: 10 February 2006 22:49 To: 'Council GNSO' Cc: 'bruce tonkin' Subject: RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb Dear Bruce, I respectfully request that some portion of the Washington meeting be focused on discussing the ToR and PDP for the policy issues in registry contracts, especially because there is a need to respond to existing gTLD contracts that are under discussion or posted for public comment. I'd ask that we set aside a minimum of 2 hours for this discussion and that we give special attention to the timing of that discussion so that the New Zealand BC representative and any other of time zone challenged councilors who are committed to dial in for a segment or two of the meeting, are not terribly disadvantaged. I leave time management/translations to our capable Secretariat. Here is my concern: I note that when I made the motion FOR the meeting, I specifically asked that we address this set of issues. Subsequently, the Chair posted a suggestion that we address two topics in the meeting. I fully supported that. However, somehow the meeting has morphed into only addressing the new gTLD policy development PDP, and I strongly prefer to have a set amount of the time focused on the second and time sensitive PDP just agreed. I would expect we will be approving the relevant ToR on the Council call on 2/16, so a 2 hour discussion on methods, how to best proceed, etc. seems critical to include in the working group/session in Washington. And, given the intervening days between Monday and 2/24 or 2/25, we can certainly expect each of the constituencies to consult within themselves on the options. To accommodate that many councilors are not going to be in person, we could identify/explore options for organizing the work, and the various approaches of how to best progress the work, any needed information or resources, etc. and post them for discussion on the Council list. Time lines for completing the work should also be discussed. I have a concrete proposal for how to manage the work and I'd propose that others give thought as well to options: I propose that the second PDP be worked as a modified TF. I had previously supported the Council working as a Committee of the Whole of Council. However, I've spoken with several councilors, and I suggest that following adaptation: Create a Council working group all councilors, but, allow each Constituency to substitute Constituency members for Councilors, so long as there is a minimum of one councilor from each constituency, for a total of three per constituency. Other members would be the liaisons from the ACs, and the NomComm members. Rationale: The two PDPs are quite interlinked, and it is essential for the full understanding of the Council of the discussions and examinations of the policy issues on PDP on contractual issues in existing registry contracts [or whatever we call it] and of the policy issues and explorations being undertaken in new GTLD policy PDP. I understand that some constituencies may want to appoint constituency members, but that may not the case for all constituencies... and this will allow flexibility. Also, should some constituencies want to have three reps, and some only two, or even one, that can be balanced by simply giving all constituencies the same number of votes on the Council Working Group/TF. As we all recall, votes are singular, and not "weighted" in the PDP working process. Marilyn Cade BC Councilor -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:43 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb Hello, --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in
Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy
development process. The Committee is of the whole Council, but
where a
Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from
their constituency to participate. The constituency/Council
member
should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to
the
meeting.
I have also understood that each constituency could send up to 3 delegates to the meeting - is that correct? is this also a feature of the "Committee of the whole Council", or was it part of the earlier D.C meeting package :) or formula? Mawaki
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
participants (2)
-
Marilyn Cade -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com