Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
Hi Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a motion accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets: [This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the drafting team, so TBD: “It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities.”] Sorry, missed that. So what do we do? Bill On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Importance: High
ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue. It is a well established fact. At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not contribute anything directly.
I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to leave it fine.
We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed later.
Chuck
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
Hi
On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it is important..."
Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around..
On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Nice job Bill. Two minor, nonmaterial edits: In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to "literature". But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of thought. Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature mentioned would have led to a different conclusion. The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." I think it should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." Ditto the above
I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January.
Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points:
On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Apologies for belated comments. This looks great. Many thanks to you all for drafting.
I have two questions: 1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding alternates? Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a position? I was not entirely clear on that.
Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine objections to/issues with the approach. Moreover, if there were alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less important. So the wording was intended to put the idea on the table as something that might be considered without implying it might be a substitute for multiple slots. If people think it doesn't work and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know.
2) Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct? I ask only b/c I would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for more.
I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion. Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally represented by both even if they're not active participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky from some perspectives...Thoughts?
Bill
*********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
Everybody know this in the community. Should it really be included? Its not a new fact of live --andrei From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:06 PM To: GNSO Council List Cc: "Géry de Saint@pechora1.lax.icann.org, Glen"; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] Hi Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a motion accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets: [This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the drafting team, so TBD: It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities.] Sorry, missed that. So what do we do? Bill On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later. _____ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Importance: High ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue. It is a well established fact. At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not contribute anything directly. I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to leave it fine. We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed later. Chuck _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Hi On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it is important..." Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around.. On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Nice job Bill. Two minor, nonmaterial edits: 1. In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to "literature". But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of thought. Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature mentioned would have led to a different conclusion. 2. The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." I think it should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." Ditto the above I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January. Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points: On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: Apologies for belated comments. This looks great. Many thanks to you all for drafting. I have two questions: 1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding alternates? Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a position? I was not entirely clear on that. Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine objections to/issues with the approach. Moreover, if there were alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less important. So the wording was intended to put the idea on the table as something that might be considered without implying it might be a substitute for multiple slots. If people think it doesn't work and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know. 2) Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct? I ask only b/c I would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for more. I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion. Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally represented by both even if they're not active participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky from some perspectives...Thoughts? Bill *********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
First of all, let's not submit the comments until we resolve this in some way. I think there are three things we can do that I talk about below: 1. Submit the comments as is with the statement and the brackets 2. Remove the sentence from the comments 3. Leave the sentence but remove the brackets. In our meeting yesterday, we approved the letter with the statement in brackets, so we probably do not need any additional action to do option 1; if we do this we can literally leave it as is, which is what we approved, or add a footnote to explain the brackets, maybe something like this: "There was not unanimous support for including this sentence." If we choose options 2 or 3, I believe we should insert a footnote that explains what was done and why. The comments are due by 10 February, which is 8 days before our next meeting, so we need to resolve this before then. To get that process started, it might help to get a sense of where varous Councilors are on this. To do that, I would like to ask as many Councilors as possible to respond on this list to the following: * Which of the options do your prefer and why? (1, 2, 3, none) Based on the responses received, we can then discuss how to reach final resolution. Whatever we do, I think it is important to understand that the bracketed statement is accurate so it is not a matter of accuracy but rather a matter of whether we want to say it or not. Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:06 AM To: GNSO Council List Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@peacock.verisign.com; _Glen=22?=; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] Hi Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a motion accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets: [This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the drafting team, so TBD: "It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities."] Sorry, missed that. So what do we do? Bill On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later. ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Importance: High ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue. It is a well established fact. At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not contribute anything directly. I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to leave it fine. We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed later. Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Hi On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it is important..." Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around.. On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Nice job Bill. Two minor, nonmaterial edits: 1. In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to "literature". But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of thought. Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature mentioned would have led to a different conclusion. 2. The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." I think it should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." Ditto the above I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January. Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points: On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: Apologies for belated comments. This looks great. Many thanks to you all for drafting. I have two questions: 1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding alternates? Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a position? I was not entirely clear on that. Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine objections to/issues with the approach. Moreover, if there were alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less important. So the wording was intended to put the idea on the table as something that might be considered without implying it might be a substitute for multiple slots. If people think it doesn't work and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know. 2) Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct? I ask only b/c I would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for more. I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion. Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally represented by both even if they're not active participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky from some perspectives...Thoughts? Bill *********************************************************** 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 see no reason why we would not include the sentence, minus the brackets, to help support the arguments in that paragraph around needing additional representation. We could add a footnote to show that this statement is supported by accounts shown in the FY10 Operating Plan & Budget [page 15]. So, option 3 for me. Thanks. Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 29 January 2010 13:58 To: William Drake; GNSO Council List Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@peacock.verisign.com; _Glen=22?= Subject: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] First of all, let's not submit the comments until we resolve this in some way. I think there are three things we can do that I talk about below: 1. Submit the comments as is with the statement and the brackets 2. Remove the sentence from the comments 3. Leave the sentence but remove the brackets. In our meeting yesterday, we approved the letter with the statement in brackets, so we probably do not need any additional action to do option 1; if we do this we can literally leave it as is, which is what we approved, or add a footnote to explain the brackets, maybe something like this: "There was not unanimous support for including this sentence." If we choose options 2 or 3, I believe we should insert a footnote that explains what was done and why. The comments are due by 10 February, which is 8 days before our next meeting, so we need to resolve this before then. To get that process started, it might help to get a sense of where varous Councilors are on this. To do that, I would like to ask as many Councilors as possible to respond on this list to the following: * Which of the options do your prefer and why? (1, 2, 3, none) Based on the responses received, we can then discuss how to reach final resolution. Whatever we do, I think it is important to understand that the bracketed statement is accurate so it is not a matter of accuracy but rather a matter of whether we want to say it or not. Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:06 AM To: GNSO Council List Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@peacock.verisign.com; _Glen=22?=; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] Hi Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a motion accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets: [This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the drafting team, so TBD: "It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities."] Sorry, missed that. So what do we do? Bill On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later. ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Importance: High ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue. It is a well established fact. At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not contribute anything directly. I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to leave it fine. We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed later. Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Hi On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it is important..." Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around.. On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Nice job Bill. Two minor, nonmaterial edits: 1. In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to "literature". But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of thought. Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature mentioned would have led to a different conclusion. 2. The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." I think it should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." Ditto the above I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January. Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points: On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: Apologies for belated comments. This looks great. Many thanks to you all for drafting. I have two questions: 1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding alternates? Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a position? I was not entirely clear on that. Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine objections to/issues with the approach. Moreover, if there were alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less important. So the wording was intended to put the idea on the table as something that might be considered without implying it might be a substitute for multiple slots. If people think it doesn't work and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know. 2) Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct? I ask only b/c I would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for more. I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion. Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally represented by both even if they're not active participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky from some perspectives...Thoughts? Bill *********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
participants (4)
-
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Caroline Greer -
Gomes, Chuck -
William Drake