RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
Hi Stephane I'm not sure we've allowed enough time for people to properly consider this idea and reflect on other views I got the first email on 19th Jan at 4.31am my time (Sydney) and then the suspend list email a little over 24 hours later With a quite a lot going on with work and otherwise I was not able to express a view within the 24 hours - my apologies for that. NCSG I think is a good example where (at the moment) our SG Chair SG Policy Chair are not on Council and we have practical difficulty keeping up with the task of ensuring full communication of Council matters so that our SG as a whole can make an informed and constructive contribution to GNSO deliberations. So I support the suggested list. Individuals can make their own decision about how closely they need to follow the list..and perhaps not at all. In a very general sense, it seems to me there is a danger that the increasing specificity of GNSO focus and narrowing of scope will come at the cost of strategic effectiveness for GNSO in ICANN as a whole. The overarching context provided by the Affirmation of Commitments and the agreed Strategy Plan suggest a preference for open, transparent and engaged communication between GNSO stakeholders and across the ICANN community. I thought your suggestion was a practical and positive contribution to open dialogue and I am truly sorry I was not able to express this view within the limited (as it turned out) timeframe available. Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2011 12:01 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: ccsg-chairs@icann.org; Rosette, Kristina; Taylor, David Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list Steve, That is correct. Kristina also said she was never for nor against. There has been no other reactions so far. I am disappointed by the reactions that we have had, but there's really very little I can do if those reactions are the only ones that we get. So if the people on this group have a different opinion, then once again I suggest discussing that with your respective Council reps to get that position across. Thanks, Stéphane Le 19 janv. 2011 à 19:40, Metalitz, Steven a écrit :
Stephane,
I don't follow that list, but from what I see from looking at the archive just now, the negative reactions are solely from your fellow Registrar SG representatives. Is that correct or did I miss something?
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:10 PM To: ccsg-chairs@icann.org Subject: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
Dear C and SG Chairs,
I'm sure you all follow the Council list and are therefore aware of the discussion about this list on there.
The reactions so far from the Council are against this list.
To my great regret, I am therefore asking Glen to suspend it.
If you do not agree with this decision, please work through your Council reps to make that position known.
Thanks for your understanding.
Stéphane
Hi On Jan 20, 2011, at 4:28 AM, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
I'm not sure we've allowed enough time for people to properly consider this idea and reflect on other views
I am quite sure that we have not. I'm just now seeing the thread; on Tuesday at 17:44 Stéphane wrote to the Council saying a list would be created, and by Wednesday 19:02 he was already declaring the list dead. I hope that going forward decisions will not be taken on such a short time line based on just a couple of people's views. We're spread out around the world in different time zones and sometimes people are actually offline or otherwise busy with non-Council matters. I have no problem with a list as long as it's publicly archived and it's not about policy, and as a general matter think community members need to talk more to others outside their silos rather than less. Best Bill
I fully agree. No quick shot on basis of just some voices. Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Drake William Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2011 11:20 An: Rosemary Sinclair Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Steven Metalitz; GNSO Council List; Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy Betreff: RE: [council] Council/Chair interaction Hi On Jan 20, 2011, at 4:28 AM, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
I'm not sure we've allowed enough time for people to properly consider this idea and reflect on other views
I am quite sure that we have not. I'm just now seeing the thread; on Tuesday at 17:44 Stéphane wrote to the Council saying a list would be created, and by Wednesday 19:02 he was already declaring the list dead. I hope that going forward decisions will not be taken on such a short time line based on just a couple of people's views. We're spread out around the world in different time zones and sometimes people are actually offline or otherwise busy with non-Council matters. I have no problem with a list as long as it's publicly archived and it's not about policy, and as a general matter think community members need to talk more to others outside their silos rather than less. Best Bill
Rosemary, I agree with all the points you've made. To your more general point on the dangers of seeing the GNSO isolate itself from the rest of the community. That is something that I think we should always watch out for, on everything we do. I actually think it is a crucial point for us at the moment, because the need for cross-community interaction is, as you say, underscored in the AoC. However, as recent CWGs have shown, I also think this needs to be done in a careful and structured way. That is why I think Wolf's approach to the proposed SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF is probably the one that makes most sense to the GNSO at this time (please see separate email for that contact). To the mailing list, and also taking on board Bill and Wolf's comments, I felt comfortable suspending the list because it can be recreated at any time. I don't think it matters if the list is started now or in a couple of days' time. So as it was obvious that some on the Council were against it, I felt it best to suspend for now and let the discussion develop. We now have as many for as we have against. So let's give others time to chime in and then see where we want to go. Thanks, Stéphane Le 20 janv. 2011 à 04:28, Rosemary Sinclair a écrit :
Hi Stephane
I'm not sure we've allowed enough time for people to properly consider this idea and reflect on other views
I got the first email on 19th Jan at 4.31am my time (Sydney) and then the suspend list email a little over 24 hours later
With a quite a lot going on with work and otherwise I was not able to express a view within the 24 hours - my apologies for that.
NCSG I think is a good example where (at the moment) our SG Chair SG Policy Chair are not on Council and we have practical difficulty keeping up with the task of ensuring full communication of Council matters so that our SG as a whole can make an informed and constructive contribution to GNSO deliberations.
So I support the suggested list.
Individuals can make their own decision about how closely they need to follow the list..and perhaps not at all.
In a very general sense, it seems to me there is a danger that the increasing specificity of GNSO focus and narrowing of scope will come at the cost of strategic effectiveness for GNSO in ICANN as a whole.
The overarching context provided by the Affirmation of Commitments and the agreed Strategy Plan suggest a preference for open, transparent and engaged communication between GNSO stakeholders and across the ICANN community.
I thought your suggestion was a practical and positive contribution to open dialogue and I am truly sorry I was not able to express this view within the limited (as it turned out) timeframe available.
Cheers
Rosemary
Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au Skype: rasinclair
Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2011 12:01 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: ccsg-chairs@icann.org; Rosette, Kristina; Taylor, David Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
Steve,
That is correct. Kristina also said she was never for nor against. There has been no other reactions so far.
I am disappointed by the reactions that we have had, but there's really very little I can do if those reactions are the only ones that we get.
So if the people on this group have a different opinion, then once again I suggest discussing that with your respective Council reps to get that position across.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 janv. 2011 à 19:40, Metalitz, Steven a écrit :
Stephane,
I don't follow that list, but from what I see from looking at the archive just now, the negative reactions are solely from your fellow Registrar SG representatives. Is that correct or did I miss something?
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:10 PM To: ccsg-chairs@icann.org Subject: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
Dear C and SG Chairs,
I'm sure you all follow the Council list and are therefore aware of the discussion about this list on there.
The reactions so far from the Council are against this list.
To my great regret, I am therefore asking Glen to suspend it.
If you do not agree with this decision, please work through your Council reps to make that position known.
Thanks for your understanding.
Stéphane
Hi again, and just to be clear - I'm not opposed to a mailing list in principle, I was just concerned at how it would operate and whether it would lead to a proliferation of mailing lists that take the place of more open discussions. I'm fully supportive of there being better and more regular channels of communication between and among the Council and the various SGs/Constituencies. I don't see that as in any way threatening either the management function of the Council or the role of Councilors as representatives of their various SGs/Cs, but rather view it all as complementary. I wasn't sure a mailing list is absolutely necessary if - and this could be a big "if" sometimes - the Council Chair, Vice-Chairs, the respective Chairs of each SG/C and each Councilor regularly make it a point to communicate with one another over matters of mutual interest and efficiency, provided that (1) such communications do not become replacements for full, open policy discussion within the Council/GNSO framework; and (2) any decisions agreed upon between the Council Chair/Vice-Chairs and SG/C Chairs are duly reported and, if necessary, questioned by the Council (to whom the Chair/Vice-Chairs are accountable in those roles). Such a list should also preferably be open-archived. However, it may be that a mailing list is the most effective and efficient way to achieve that kind of regular cross-SG/Council/Constituency communication. If so, then all I ask is that the provisos I mentioned are borne in mind. 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: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au> CC:"Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>, <ncsg-ec@n4c.eu>, "NCSG-Policy" <ncsg-policy@n4c.eu> Date: 1/20/2011 11:08 AM Subject: [council] Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list Rosemary, I agree with all the points you've made. To your more general point on the dangers of seeing the GNSO isolate itself from the rest of the community. That is something that I think we should always watch out for, on everything we do. I actually think it is a crucial point for us at the moment, because the need for cross-community interaction is, as you say, underscored in the AoC. However, as recent CWGs have shown, I also think this needs to be done in a careful and structured way. That is why I think Wolf's approach to the proposed SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF is probably the one that makes most sense to the GNSO at this time (please see separate email for that contact). To the mailing list, and also taking on board Bill and Wolf's comments, I felt comfortable suspending the list because it can be recreated at any time. I don't think it matters if the list is started now or in a couple of days' time. So as it was obvious that some on the Council were against it, I felt it best to suspend for now and let the discussion develop. We now have as many for as we have against. So let's give others time to chime in and then see where we want to go. Thanks, Stéphane Le 20 janv. 2011 à 04:28, Rosemary Sinclair a écrit :
Hi Stephane
I'm not sure we've allowed enough time for people to properly consider this idea and reflect on other views
I got the first email on 19th Jan at 4.31am my time (Sydney) and then the suspend list email a little over 24 hours later
With a quite a lot going on with work and otherwise I was not able to express a view within the 24 hours - my apologies for that.
NCSG I think is a good example where (at the moment) our SG Chair SG Policy Chair are not on Council and we have practical difficulty keeping up with the task of ensuring full communication of Council matters so that our SG as a whole can make an informed and constructive contribution to GNSO deliberations.
So I support the suggested list.
Individuals can make their own decision about how closely they need to follow the list..and perhaps not at all.
In a very general sense, it seems to me there is a danger that the increasing specificity of GNSO focus and narrowing of scope will come at the cost of strategic effectiveness for GNSO in ICANN as a whole.
The overarching context provided by the Affirmation of Commitments and the agreed Strategy Plan suggest a preference for open, transparent and engaged communication between GNSO stakeholders and across the ICANN community.
I thought your suggestion was a practical and positive contribution to open dialogue and I am truly sorry I was not able to express this view within the limited (as it turned out) timeframe available.
Cheers
Rosemary
Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au Skype: rasinclair
Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2011 12:01 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: ccsg-chairs@icann.org; Rosette, Kristina; Taylor, David Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
Steve,
That is correct. Kristina also said she was never for nor against. There has been no other reactions so far.
I am disappointed by the reactions that we have had, but there's really very little I can do if those reactions are the only ones that we get.
So if the people on this group have a different opinion, then once again I suggest discussing that with your respective Council reps to get that position across.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 janv. 2011 à 19:40, Metalitz, Steven a écrit :
Stephane,
I don't follow that list, but from what I see from looking at the
archive just now, the negative reactions are solely from your fellow Registrar SG representatives. Is that correct or did I miss something?
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org
[mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:10 PM To: ccsg-chairs@icann.org Subject: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
Dear C and SG Chairs,
I'm sure you all follow the Council list and are therefore aware of the discussion about this list on there.
The reactions so far from the Council are against this list.
To my great regret, I am therefore asking Glen to suspend it.
If you do not agree with this decision, please work through your Council reps to make that position known.
Thanks for your understanding.
Stéphane
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 (5)
-
Drake William -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary Wong -
Rosemary Sinclair -
Stéphane Van Gelder