As written, I would think that the RrSG would find it difficult to support TK recommendations considering that the second one is requesting: Support for organizing face-to-face meetings (e.g. date/time, location, equipment, telephone bridge and, in certain venues, arranging accommodations) I know the email I sent to the Council list a few days ago raising the issue of a tendency towards more and more requests for F2F meetings for WTs and DTs has not generated much discussion. I do hope this is simply because people have other things on their plate and not that the issue is of no interest to anyone. Perhaps this motion, and the contents of the TK recommendations, will generate some discussion on the matter... Thanks, Stéphane Le 3 déc. 2009 à 09:52, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :

Chuck,

I'd like to second this motion but have one question regarding to the "resolved": does "sharing the recommendations with the board.." mean that there is no further need for board approval? In this case the council might direct staff to execute the recommendations.

Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 06:33 An: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

I am making this motion for action in our 17 Dec 09 Council meeting.

Glen - Please post this per normal practice. Thanks.

Chuck

Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

Motion by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by:

Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a “tool kit” of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03..., p. 46.);

Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182);

Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report;

Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;

Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review;

Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations;

Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting;

RESOLVED, the Council accepts the recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05no...) and directs Staff to share the recommendations with the Board and post the document on the GNSO web page at http://gnso.icann.org/.

Thanks Chuck. I've solicited feedback from the RrSG on this issue so there's probably going to be more discussion to come. However, your explanations about what the TK actually says seem to indicate that I may have misunderstood the recommendation on the F2F meetings. If that is indeed the case, and I have to admit I'm still not understanding it in that light (the wording does ask for "support for F2F meetings", it doesn't say "F2F meetings are one of the services that could be made available"), then perhaps others may misunderstand it as well. So perhaps a friendly amendment to your motion, just ensuring that the meaning you give for this recommendation is actually without a doubt, might be useful? One last thing on the fact that you found my email "extremely disappointing". I think it's worth remembering that we are all under a huge workload and that some things may be missed the first time around. In this case, I missed the recommendations when they were first sent to the Council list and only caught them today. That being the case, I have no qualms about bringing this up, and possibly slowing down the process (which I take it is what irks you). I would rather voice a concern, at the risk of being told that there really is no reason for concern or that I'm just not understanding the issue, than not say anything just because we all want to get things done. That is always what I ask of my staff - please never sit on the tough questions, even if it looks like the boss' mind is already made up - because that's the way we avoid making mistakes. Thanks, Stéphane Le 3 déc. 2009 à 15:37, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

Stephane,

I find this very surprising and extremely disappointing. The RrSG has representation on the CSG WT and there was no concern expressed from the RrSG. The CSG WT sought comments from SGs months ago and there was no concern from the RrSG. The RrSG has representation on the OSC and no concern was expressed from the RrSG. The recommendations were sent to the full Council list on 5 Nov for discussion and comment and the topic was raised for discussion on the 23 Nov Council meeting; still no RrSG comment. Now a motion is made after many months of comment solicitation, and you say the RrSG may not support the motion. Am I missing something here?

More specifically to the point of the recommendations, you seem to be talking about ICANN funding for F2F meetings. The Toolkit of Services recommendations say nothing about that. The recommendations simply say that one of the services that could be made available for SGs and constituencies is support for arranging face-to-face meetings for SGs and constituencies. They make no reference to doing that for WTs, WGs, or other GNSO organizations besides constituencies and SGs; in fact, a more general approach that left it open to other organizations was rejected. All that is being recommended here is, if a SG or constituency decides to hold a F2F meeting and would like Staff assistance for doing that, then they could opt to use that service if they like.

Chuck

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:02 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

As written, I would think that the RrSG would find it difficult to support TK recommendations considering that the second one is requesting:

Support for organizing face-to-face meetings (e.g. date/time, location, equipment, telephone bridge and, in certain venues, arranging accommodations)

I know the email I sent to the Council list a few days ago raising the issue of a tendency towards more and more requests for F2F meetings for WTs and DTs has not generated much discussion. I do hope this is simply because people have other things on their plate and not that the issue is of no interest to anyone.

Perhaps this motion, and the contents of the TK recommendations, will generate some discussion on the matter...

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 3 déc. 2009 à 09:52, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :

...

Chuck,

I'd like to second this motion but have one question regarding to the "resolved": does "sharing the recommendations with the board.." mean that there is no further need for board approval? In this case the council might direct staff to execute the recommendations.

Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 06:33 An: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

I am making this motion for action in our 17 Dec 09 Council meeting.

Glen - Please post this per normal practice. Thanks.

Chuck

Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups Motion by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a “tool kit” of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03..., p. 46.); Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182); Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report; Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review; Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations; Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting; RESOLVED, the Council accepts the recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05no...) and directs Staff to share the recommendations with the Board and post the document on the GNSO web page at http://gnso.icann.org/.