Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi, Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this. I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list. I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs. One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done. a.
We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one clear position that was made is that the process should follow the practice we have been following in recent months and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this.
I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list.
I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs.
One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done.
a.
Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the Council, obviously. So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul to kick this off? I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our weekend sessions but at no other times. It makes the weekend sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more contentious than warranted. It allows a few well-funded members of the community to have far undue influence over Council deliberations and policy development. With specific respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of all the arguments we have heard for months and over several meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and progress towards policy development. Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation periods as during our Wednesday session. If councilors wish to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to speak than there are Councilors. Do others agree or disagree with this? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one clear position that was made is that the process should follow the practice we have been following in recent months and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this.
I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list.
I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs.
One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done.
a.
Mike, I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so I would have a concern in that regard. On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the work they request us to do. I think it would be premature and ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in place. There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week to discuss the issues. Before we develop a process, it would be helpful to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good start. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the Council, obviously. So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul to kick this off?
I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our weekend sessions but at no other times. It makes the weekend sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more contentious than warranted. It allows a few well-funded members of the community to have far undue influence over Council deliberations and policy development. With specific respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of all the arguments we have heard for months and over several meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and progress towards policy development.
Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation periods as during our Wednesday session. If councilors wish to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to speak than there are Councilors.
Do others agree or disagree with this?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one clear position that was made is that the process should follow the practice we have been following in recent months and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this.
I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list.
I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs.
One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done.
a.
Chuck, Our processes are open. Our sessions are recorded and transcribed. We must have time to meet as a Council, without outside distraction and influence, just like in our regular conference calls. The Council's weekend sessions have devolved to near worthlessness over the past several meetings, imho. The Board's letter seems quite clear to me. What are your questions that need clarification? Probably best to air them via email before we get to Seoul, so we can be more productive while there? Mike -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:49 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council Mike, I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so I would have a concern in that regard. On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the work they request us to do. I think it would be premature and ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in place. There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week to discuss the issues. Before we develop a process, it would be helpful to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good start. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the Council, obviously. So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul to kick this off?
I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our weekend sessions but at no other times. It makes the weekend sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more contentious than warranted. It allows a few well-funded members of the community to have far undue influence over Council deliberations and policy development. With specific respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of all the arguments we have heard for months and over several meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and progress towards policy development.
Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation periods as during our Wednesday session. If councilors wish to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to speak than there are Councilors.
Do others agree or disagree with this?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one clear position that was made is that the process should follow the practice we have been following in recent months and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this.
I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list.
I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs.
One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done.
a.
On how to go about doing the work that's being asked, I think the first question that needs to be answered is whether we strive to create a drafting team to come up with a proposal for "more effective and implementable" alternatives to the IP Clearinghouse and the URS. The Board has given us other options besides looking to better the systems that the IRT suggested be used. If we do decide to go for a DT, one question I ask myself is about the team's composition. The new Council has 4 ex-IRT members on it (sorry if I forgot anyone)! So while we are probably not expected to rehash the IRT's work, at the same time it would be useful to have that expertise going into this new task. What do the ex-IRT members think? Stéphane Le 15/10/09 17:48, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
Mike,
I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so I would have a concern in that regard.
On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the work they request us to do. I think it would be premature and ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in place. There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week to discuss the issues. Before we develop a process, it would be helpful to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good start.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the Council, obviously. So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul to kick this off?
I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our weekend sessions but at no other times. It makes the weekend sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more contentious than warranted. It allows a few well-funded members of the community to have far undue influence over Council deliberations and policy development. With specific respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of all the arguments we have heard for months and over several meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and progress towards policy development.
Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation periods as during our Wednesday session. If councilors wish to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to speak than there are Councilors.
Do others agree or disagree with this?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one clear position that was made is that the process should follow the practice we have been following in recent months and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this.
I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list.
I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs.
One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done.
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts. I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings. This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now. I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting. Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership). We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time. The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009). a.
Pending RySG approval, Jeff Neuman and I are willing to participate on such a drafting team; there could be others interested from the RySG. I should be able to free up some time on Saturday afternoon. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
Dear All, the mailing list is up and working: gnso-sti@icann.org (special trademark issues - sti) public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/ and can be found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/index.htm Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Jeff Neuman are subscribed to the list. Please let me know who else would like to join the drafting team and be added to the list. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts. I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings. This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now. I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting. Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership). We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time. The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009). a.
I would be interested. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 1:06 PM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council Dear All, the mailing list is up and working: gnso-sti@icann.org (special trademark issues - sti) public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/ and can be found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/index.htm Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Jeff Neuman are subscribed to the list. Please let me know who else would like to join the drafting team and be added to the list. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts. I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings. This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now. I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting. Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership). We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time. The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009). a.
Glen, I am interested in joining the drafting team. Regards Olga 2009/10/19 Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>
Dear All,
the mailing list is up and working: gnso-sti@icann.org (special trademark issues - sti)
public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/
and can be found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/index.htm
Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Jeff Neuman are subscribed to the list. Please let me know who else would like to join the drafting team and be added to the list.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting ( https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
-- Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing. www.south-ssig.com.ar
Glen, please subscribe me to the list. Very important subject. --andrei
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Gery Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:06 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Dear All,
the mailing list is up and working: gnso-sti@icann.org (special trademark issues - sti)
public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/
and can be found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/index.htm
Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Jeff Neuman are subscribed to the list. Please let me know who else would like to join the drafting team and be added to the list.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
Hello All, In terms of availability to discuss the Board letter to the GNSO - I am planning to arrive in Seoul on Thursday afternoon 22 Oct, and could be available to meet with any subgroup of the GNSO on the Friday 23 Oct - for anyone that is in town early. I find my weekend is now nearly fully packed with meetings - so thought I would allocate Friday to be able to talk to staff and other people arriving early to discuss how to make the best use of the meeting time during the week on important issues such as trademarks. For example - we could allocate some time during the Board/GNSO dinner for a more structured discussion on the trademark issues/GNSO letter - rather than purely chatter at each table. I am not sure that the current format maximises the benefit of Board/GNSO Council meeting time on an important topic. It is currently working as a useful occasion for Board/Council to get to know each other a little better. In the past I find more social engagements such as dinner etc - work after a more formal session (short e.g 30 mins) where the context for the issue is set and some of the concerns are raised - then the social "break-out" function allows those with differing views to get together and discuss in more detail informally. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Dear Bruce, In this case since the main dinner subject is centered on the Board letter, I am more then happy to have someone from the Board give us an introduction to its thinking before releasing people to get food and the 'social "break-out"' Would you be interested in giving us the Board's view on the Specific Trademark Issues as a way to kick off the discussions. We could then have a Q&A and then allow people to start dinner. a. On 19 Oct 2009, at 11:39, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
In terms of availability to discuss the Board letter to the GNSO - I am planning to arrive in Seoul on Thursday afternoon 22 Oct, and could be available to meet with any subgroup of the GNSO on the Friday 23 Oct - for anyone that is in town early. I find my weekend is now nearly fully packed with meetings - so thought I would allocate Friday to be able to talk to staff and other people arriving early to discuss how to make the best use of the meeting time during the week on important issues such as trademarks.
For example - we could allocate some time during the Board/GNSO dinner for a more structured discussion on the trademark issues/GNSO letter - rather than purely chatter at each table.
I am not sure that the current format maximises the benefit of Board/GNSO Council meeting time on an important topic. It is currently working as a useful occasion for Board/Council to get to know each other a little better.
In the past I find more social engagements such as dinner etc - work after a more formal session (short e.g 30 mins) where the context for the issue is set and some of the concerns are raised - then the social "break-out" function allows those with differing views to get together and discuss in more detail informally.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT. Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point forward. The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes the work forward. In particular, it would be most productive for that group to include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal. (The IRT work was done through several work teams. Those former IRT members who worked on the specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts. I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings. This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now. I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting. Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership). We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time. The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009). a.
I too will be the provisional rep to the DT from NCUC. As we go into Seoul, it is very likely that additional members of the NCUC-NCSG will join the DT. For now, please add me to the listserv and group. Speaking personally (and not as an NCUC Councillor), I agree with Kristina's suggestion below that a small group of former IRT members be asked to serve as an advisory group to this DT. In particular, I'd advocate for those former IRT members with either technical and/or "historical" experience in gTLD operational matters to form this small advisory group. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> 10/20/2009 6:54 PM >>>
I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT. Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point forward. The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes the work forward. In particular, it would be most productive for that group to include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal. (The IRT work was done through several work teams. Those former IRT members who worked on the specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts. I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings. This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now. I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting. Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership). We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time. The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009). a.
Hello, Bruce said he 'could be available to meet with any subgroup of the GNSO,' and I believe Avri suggested we get 2-3 names per constituency to get the process started. NCUC would support that process, it's the right thing to do this within normal, agreed GNSO procedures. However, we would not support privileging the defunct IRT and having it select members of an advisory group to the DT. We, like most everyone in ALAC I saw comment, were not happy with the way the IRT process was handled and I suggest we do not unnecessarily revisit prior sources of strong disagreement, which will just cloud things. There are a lot of people with expertise who were not allowed to participate in the IRT and probably wouldn't be selected by the IRT but who could serve if a separate advisory group if the DT decides one is really needed (not obvious ex ante). And anyway, if constituencies opt to put forward names that served on the IRT, that will bring the relevant institutional memory to the table. So we don't need to elevate the IRT per se to some special position of authority in this matter. Best, Bill On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT. Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point forward.
The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes the work forward. In particular, it would be most productive for that group to include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal. (The IRT work was done through several work teams. Those former IRT members who worked on the specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/ accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
The sole purpose of the suggested IRT group is to answer questions, not to provide advice. If no questions are asked of it, it will not do anything. To the extent the use of "advisory" created any misunderstanding, perhaps the correct adjective should have been "resource." It is certainly the Council's prerogative to reject the offer, which was made in good faith and for the sole purpose of facilitating the Council in avoiding the same errors in its report that were made in both the Board letter and the staff recommendations. -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:26 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council Hello, Bruce said he 'could be available to meet with any subgroup of the GNSO,' and I believe Avri suggested we get 2-3 names per constituency to get the process started. NCUC would support that process, it's the right thing to do this within normal, agreed GNSO procedures. However, we would not support privileging the defunct IRT and having it select members of an advisory group to the DT. We, like most everyone in ALAC I saw comment, were not happy with the way the IRT process was handled and I suggest we do not unnecessarily revisit prior sources of strong disagreement, which will just cloud things. There are a lot of people with expertise who were not allowed to participate in the IRT and probably wouldn't be selected by the IRT but who could serve if a separate advisory group if the DT decides one is really needed (not obvious ex ante). And anyway, if constituencies opt to put forward names that served on the IRT, that will bring the relevant institutional memory to the table. So we don't need to elevate the IRT per se to some special position of authority in this matter. Best, Bill On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT. Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point forward.
The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes the work forward. In particular, it would be most productive for that group to include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal. (The IRT work was done through several work teams. Those former IRT members who worked on the specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/ accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Hi, I understand the offer was in good faith, didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Just don't see what's gained by positioning an extra- council entity that was the focus of disputes as a gatekeeper on who might lend expertise if the DT wants to consult. Sometimes starting fresh and unburdened by legacy processes is an easier path toward consensus. And IRT people will be at the table regardless. BTW if we're building this from constituencies, for the drafting team NCUC would like Kathy Kleinman and Konstantinos Komaitis added to the list. Thanks, Bill On Oct 21, 2009, at 11:32 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
The sole purpose of the suggested IRT group is to answer questions, not to provide advice. If no questions are asked of it, it will not do anything. To the extent the use of "advisory" created any misunderstanding, perhaps the correct adjective should have been "resource."
It is certainly the Council's prerogative to reject the offer, which was made in good faith and for the sole purpose of facilitating the Council in avoiding the same errors in its report that were made in both the Board letter and the staff recommendations.
-----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:26 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hello,
Bruce said he 'could be available to meet with any subgroup of the GNSO,' and I believe Avri suggested we get 2-3 names per constituency to get the process started. NCUC would support that process, it's the right thing to do this within normal, agreed GNSO procedures. However, we would not support privileging the defunct IRT and having it select members of an advisory group to the DT. We, like most everyone in ALAC I saw comment, were not happy with the way the IRT process was handled and I suggest we do not unnecessarily revisit prior sources of strong disagreement, which will just cloud things. There are a lot of people with expertise who were not allowed to participate in the IRT and probably wouldn't be selected by the IRT but who could serve if a separate advisory group if the DT decides one is really needed (not obvious ex ante). And anyway, if constituencies opt to put forward names that served on the IRT, that will bring the relevant institutional memory to the table. So we don't need to elevate the IRT per se to some special position of authority in this matter.
Best,
Bill
On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT. Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point forward.
The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes the work forward. In particular, it would be most productive for that group to include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal. (The IRT work was done through several work teams. Those former IRT members who worked on the specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/ accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
I will be the lead rep from the ALAC. Others will hopefully be named early in the Seoul week. Alan At 18/10/2009 08:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
Hi, On behalf of the RrSG, please add myself, Adrian Kinderis and RrSG Treasurer Jeff Eckhaus to this list. Stéphane Le 18/10/09 14:46, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
Please add Jean Christophe Vignes and Jon Nevett from the RrSG. Stéphane Le 21/10/09 12:02, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit :
Hi,
On behalf of the RrSG, please add myself, Adrian Kinderis and RrSG Treasurer Jeff Eckhaus to this list.
Stéphane
Le 18/10/09 14:46, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
Done thanks Glen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 13:53 To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Cc: Jean-Christophe Vignes; Jonathon Nevett Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council Please add Jean Christophe Vignes and Jon Nevett from the RrSG. Stéphane Le 21/10/09 12:02, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit :
Hi,
On behalf of the RrSG, please add myself, Adrian Kinderis and RrSG Treasurer Jeff Eckhaus to this list.
Stéphane
Le 18/10/09 14:46, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
I echo Chuck's concerns in this regard, for reasons similar to what I just outlined in my last email regarding secret ballots. At the same time, I take Mike's point that we should try to maximize Council time and efficiency, particularly when we've got so much on our collective plates at this time. I don't mean to presume on the Chair's duties, but would it be possible to control the time in such a way as to effect this? Perhaps by limiting the number of representatives of each self-identified interest group who wishes to speak? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 10/15/2009 11:48 AM >>>
Mike, I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so I would have a concern in that regard. On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the work they request us to do. I think it would be premature and ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in place. There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week to discuss the issues. Before we develop a process, it would be helpful to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good start. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the Council, obviously. So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul to kick this off?
I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our weekend sessions but at no other times. It makes the weekend sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more contentious than warranted. It allows a few well-funded members of the community to have far undue influence over Council deliberations and policy development. With specific respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of all the arguments we have heard for months and over several meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and progress towards policy development.
Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation periods as during our Wednesday session. If councilors wish to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to speak than there are Councilors.
Do others agree or disagree with this?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one clear position that was made is that the process should follow the practice we have been following in recent months and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this.
I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list.
I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs.
One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done.
a.
Two observations: 1. Since the clock started ticking on yesterday and ends on 14 December, by the time the new Council is seated, just 6 working weeks will be left. 2. If this request for Council input is initially performed by a work group not directly mapping to Council, it will have to complete its work with sufficient time for the result to be formally approved by the GNSO reducing the effective time even more. Alan At 15/10/2009 10:30 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one clear position that was made is that the process should follow the practice we have been following in recent months and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this.
I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list.
I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs.
One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done.
a.
participants (14)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Glen de Saint Géry -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Olga Cavalli -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake -
Zahid Jamil