Councillors, As a side-effect of pushing back our September meeting to the 22nd, our meeting calendar for October now no longer seems to make much sense. We have 2 meetings planned in October, the first on Oct 6 and the second is the Open Meeting in Dakar on Oct 26. The first meeting has a deadline for motions on Sept 28, so that's just days after our Sept 22 meeting. In light of all this, I would like to suggest we simply cancel the meeting planned on Oct 6 and return to our standard one-month interval between meetings with our Open Meeting on Oct 26. This would also have the added benefit of making the Oct 26 meeting more relevant. You will remember that in Singapore, we suffered a little in drafting the agenda for our Open Meeting there because we'd had a Council teleconference just days before the Singapore meeting. Does anyone object to canceling the Oct 6 meting? Thanks, Stéphane
The IPC may. I am checking. We are working on some motions that we had planned to introduce for October 6. It simply won't be possible to have them finalized to meet the motion deadline today. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:51 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org List Subject: [council] Council meeting calendar Councillors, As a side-effect of pushing back our September meeting to the 22nd, our meeting calendar for October now no longer seems to make much sense. We have 2 meetings planned in October, the first on Oct 6 and the second is the Open Meeting in Dakar on Oct 26. The first meeting has a deadline for motions on Sept 28, so that's just days after our Sept 22 meeting. In light of all this, I would like to suggest we simply cancel the meeting planned on Oct 6 and return to our standard one-month interval between meetings with our Open Meeting on Oct 26. This would also have the added benefit of making the Oct 26 meeting more relevant. You will remember that in Singapore, we suffered a little The ICPin drafting the agenda for our Open Meeting there because we'd had a Council teleconference just days before the Singapore meeting. Does anyone object to canceling the Oct 6 meting? Thanks, Stéphane
Cancelling that meeting presumes that a decision on the JAS report will not be deferred at the Sept 22 meeting. If it were deferred, a vote taken at the Oct 6 meeting would still be effective (ie a decision of the GNSO prior to Dakar, even if a day late for the official document cutoff). Alan At 14/09/2011 04:50 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
As a side-effect of pushing back our September meeting to the 22nd, our meeting calendar for October now no longer seems to make much sense.
We have 2 meetings planned in October, the first on Oct 6 and the second is the Open Meeting in Dakar on Oct 26.
The first meeting has a deadline for motions on Sept 28, so that's just days after our Sept 22 meeting.
In light of all this, I would like to suggest we simply cancel the meeting planned on Oct 6 and return to our standard one-month interval between meetings with our Open Meeting on Oct 26.
This would also have the added benefit of making the Oct 26 meeting more relevant. You will remember that in Singapore, we suffered a little in drafting the agenda for our Open Meeting there because we'd had a Council teleconference just days before the Singapore meeting.
Does anyone object to canceling the Oct 6 meting?
Thanks,
Stéphane
I have shared my views with Stephane that I believe cancelling the meeting is not a good idea. We have 8+ motions at least to consider on the 22nd and many of them are very substantive and likely may be deferred. In addition, we vowed at the last open council meeting to try new things at the Dakar public council meeting to make it more interactive and less focused on motions drafting etc. In order to be able to do that, we need to get some business done before hand. Given all of the things we now have on our plate, Kristina's note that there may be additional motions from the IPC, the substantive discussions we will likely have with JAS, and everything above, I am not in favor of cancelling the next meeting. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:50 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org List Subject: Re: [council] Council meeting calendar Cancelling that meeting presumes that a decision on the JAS report will not be deferred at the Sept 22 meeting. If it were deferred, a vote taken at the Oct 6 meeting would still be effective (ie a decision of the GNSO prior to Dakar, even if a day late for the official document cutoff). Alan At 14/09/2011 04:50 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
As a side-effect of pushing back our September meeting to the 22nd, our meeting calendar for October now no longer seems to make much sense.
We have 2 meetings planned in October, the first on Oct 6 and the second is the Open Meeting in Dakar on Oct 26.
The first meeting has a deadline for motions on Sept 28, so that's just days after our Sept 22 meeting.
In light of all this, I would like to suggest we simply cancel the meeting planned on Oct 6 and return to our standard one-month interval between meetings with our Open Meeting on Oct 26.
This would also have the added benefit of making the Oct 26 meeting more relevant. You will remember that in Singapore, we suffered a little in drafting the agenda for our Open Meeting there because we'd had a Council teleconference just days before the Singapore meeting.
Does anyone object to canceling the Oct 6 meting?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Thanks for everyone's input. As it seems there is opposition to canceling the Oct 6 meeting, we will leave it in the calendar as planned. Thanks, Stéphane Le 14 sept. 2011 à 17:05, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I have shared my views with Stephane that I believe cancelling the meeting is not a good idea. We have 8+ motions at least to consider on the 22nd and many of them are very substantive and likely may be deferred.
In addition, we vowed at the last open council meeting to try new things at the Dakar public council meeting to make it more interactive and less focused on motions drafting etc. In order to be able to do that, we need to get some business done before hand.
Given all of the things we now have on our plate, Kristina's note that there may be additional motions from the IPC, the substantive discussions we will likely have with JAS, and everything above, I am not in favor of cancelling the next meeting.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:50 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org List Subject: Re: [council] Council meeting calendar
Cancelling that meeting presumes that a decision on the JAS report will not be deferred at the Sept 22 meeting. If it were deferred, a vote taken at the Oct 6 meeting would still be effective (ie a decision of the GNSO prior to Dakar, even if a day late for the official document cutoff).
Alan
At 14/09/2011 04:50 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
As a side-effect of pushing back our September meeting to the 22nd, our meeting calendar for October now no longer seems to make much sense.
We have 2 meetings planned in October, the first on Oct 6 and the second is the Open Meeting in Dakar on Oct 26.
The first meeting has a deadline for motions on Sept 28, so that's just days after our Sept 22 meeting.
In light of all this, I would like to suggest we simply cancel the meeting planned on Oct 6 and return to our standard one-month interval between meetings with our Open Meeting on Oct 26.
This would also have the added benefit of making the Oct 26 meeting more relevant. You will remember that in Singapore, we suffered a little in drafting the agenda for our Open Meeting there because we'd had a Council teleconference just days before the Singapore meeting.
Does anyone object to canceling the Oct 6 meting?
Thanks,
Stéphane
I share the position of Jeff and is very important to take in account the ALAN`s words related to JAS WG situation. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:05:22 -0400 Subject: RE: [council] Council meeting calendar
I have shared my views with Stephane that I believe cancelling the meeting is not a good idea. We have 8+ motions at least to consider on the 22nd and many of them are very substantive and likely may be deferred.
In addition, we vowed at the last open council meeting to try new things at the Dakar public council meeting to make it more interactive and less focused on motions drafting etc. In order to be able to do that, we need to get some business done before hand.
Given all of the things we now have on our plate, Kristina's note that there may be additional motions from the IPC, the substantive discussions we will likely have with JAS, and everything above, I am not in favor of cancelling the next meeting.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:50 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org List Subject: Re: [council] Council meeting calendar
Cancelling that meeting presumes that a decision on the JAS report will not be deferred at the Sept 22 meeting. If it were deferred, a vote taken at the Oct 6 meeting would still be effective (ie a decision of the GNSO prior to Dakar, even if a day late for the official document cutoff).
Alan
At 14/09/2011 04:50 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
As a side-effect of pushing back our September meeting to the 22nd, our meeting calendar for October now no longer seems to make much sense.
We have 2 meetings planned in October, the first on Oct 6 and the second is the Open Meeting in Dakar on Oct 26.
The first meeting has a deadline for motions on Sept 28, so that's just days after our Sept 22 meeting.
In light of all this, I would like to suggest we simply cancel the meeting planned on Oct 6 and return to our standard one-month interval between meetings with our Open Meeting on Oct 26.
This would also have the added benefit of making the Oct 26 meeting more relevant. You will remember that in Singapore, we suffered a little in drafting the agenda for our Open Meeting there because we'd had a Council teleconference just days before the Singapore meeting.
Does anyone object to canceling the Oct 6 meting?
Thanks,
Stéphane
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
carlos dionisio aguirre -
Neuman, Jeff -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder