Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hello all. Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting. Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group. If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié :
De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz- Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com , Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com
Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward.
Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here:
1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting
If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.
One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday.
I am of course available for questions, as is Liz.
Thanks for your participation,
Antony
I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes. I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise. Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws. Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions. Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council. Other thoughts are welcome. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hello all. Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting. Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group. If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com> Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward. Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here: 1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16. We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution). In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most. One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday. I am of course available for questions, as is Liz. Thanks for your participation, Antony
Please note that I had requested that the group's draft charter be updated so as not to list me as GNSO observer. I had also advised them that they might want to make a request for an observer to the Council. I'm sure the group follows the Council list and will also see Chuck making a similar suggestion in his email below. If such a request does come from them, I would suggest that it would be interesting for the Council to have an observer on the group. Chuck, you are right that the group is attempting to come up with constructive solutions to the problems created for prospective applicants by the ever-increasing delays to the new gTLD program. I think this is a very positive approach and it will be interesting to see what comes of it. Thanks, Stéphane Le 9 nov. 2009 à 21:36, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes.
I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions.
Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council.
Other thoughts are welcome.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hello all.
Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting.
Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group.
If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz- Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com , Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com
Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward.
Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here:
1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting
If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.
One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday.
I am of course available for questions, as is Liz.
Thanks for your participation,
Antony
I understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI solution provided as soon as possible although the board has not yet decided upon, and I welcome this initiative. On the other hand the approach of this group formation looks a bit strange to me. From the membership structure they looks lik a GNSO WG (I wonder whether it has been discussed within the constituencies/SGs). They also request ICANN staff ressources which are needed for other activities already in the pipe. Has this already been accepted by ICANN? Ressources are rare. Is this the way to organize the WG-model based work in future? I don't think so. I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as the board on how to deal with policy development issues. If we start it this way we may be confronted with more particular interest groups in future trying to bypass the GNSO. Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear whether and to what extent the EoI is of interest for our work. Comments welcome. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes. I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise. Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws. Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions. Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council. Other thoughts are welcome. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hello all. Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting. Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group. If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Antony Van Couvering <HYPERLINK "mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com"avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <HYPERLINK "mailto:lizawilliams@mac.com"lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <HYPERLINK "mailto:jothan@mindsandmachines.com"jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <HYPERLINK "mailto:as@epag.de"as@epag.de>, HYPERLINK "mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com"bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek <HYPERLINK "mailto:lenz@dotberlin.de"lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <HYPERLINK "mailto:nick.wood@comlaude.com"nick.wood@comlaude.com>, HYPERLINK "mailto:mcgradyp@gtlaw.com"mcgradyp@gtlaw.com, Stéphane Van Gelder <HYPERLINK "mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com"stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <HYPERLINK "mailto:tim@godaddy.com"tim@godaddy.com> Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward. Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here: 1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16. We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution). In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most. One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday. I am of course available for questions, as is Liz. Thanks for your participation, Antony
Please note that I am not suggesting we get involved. I am suggesting we observe, and that way learn more about what this group is doing and how their work may be relevant to us. Stéphane Le 10 nov. 2009 à 00:51, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI solution provided as soon as possible although the board has not yet decided upon, and I welcome this initiative. On the other hand the approach of this group formation looks a bit strange to me. From the membership structure they looks lik a GNSO WG (I wonder whether it has been discussed within the constituencies/SGs). They also request ICANN staff ressources which are needed for other activities already in the pipe. Has this already been accepted by ICANN? Ressources are rare. Is this the way to organize the WG-model based work in future? I don't think so.
I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as the board on how to deal with policy development issues. If we start it this way we may be confronted with more particular interest groups in future trying to bypass the GNSO.
Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear whether and to what extent the EoI is of interest for our work.
Comments welcome. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes.
I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions.
Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council.
Other thoughts are welcome.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hello all.
Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting.
Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group.
If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz- Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com , Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com
Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward.
Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here:
1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting
If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.
One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday.
I am of course available for questions, as is Liz.
Thanks for your participation,
Antony
Good point Wolf. My support for this kind of effort should not be interpreted to mean that staff resources should be used. If we go down that path, I think we will expand the resources problems we already have. Chuck _____ From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group I understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI solution provided as soon as possible although the board has not yet decided upon, and I welcome this initiative. On the other hand the approach of this group formation looks a bit strange to me. From the membership structure they looks lik a GNSO WG (I wonder whether it has been discussed within the constituencies/SGs). They also request ICANN staff ressources which are needed for other activities already in the pipe. Has this already been accepted by ICANN? Ressources are rare. Is this the way to organize the WG-model based work in future? I don't think so. I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as the board on how to deal with policy development issues. If we start it this way we may be confronted with more particular interest groups in future trying to bypass the GNSO. Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear whether and to what extent the EoI is of interest for our work. Comments welcome. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes. I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise. Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws. Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions. Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council. Other thoughts are welcome. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hello all. Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting. Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group. If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com> Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward. Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here: 1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16. We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution). In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most. One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday. I am of course available for questions, as is Liz. Thanks for your participation, Antony
I don't think the EOI work needs to fall under a PDP process. Tim has made what I consider to be a valid point about this on the EOI group list. This is just an implementation issue that relates to the GNSO recommendations for an orderly and predictable rollout. The EOI would not change the application process, or any recommendations of the GNSO. It just provides better order and predictability for the application process. Stéphane Le 10 nov. 2009 à 00:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes.
I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions.
Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council.
Other thoughts are welcome.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hello all.
Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting.
Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group.
If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz- Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com , Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com
Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward.
Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here:
1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting
If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.
One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday.
I am of course available for questions, as is Liz.
Thanks for your participation,
Antony
I agree with Chuck and Stephane, except there are other parts of the GNSO Recommendations that also must be followed in any EoI process, particularly the communication plan. Also, it is possible that any EoI process will lead to efforts to categorize and prioritize the many applications that are expected. That would be a variance from Councils recommendations, and should fall within Councils remit to do that work if necessary. Conflicts of interest will probably be an issue at that point, for many of us. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:05 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group I don't think the EOI work needs to fall under a PDP process. Tim has made what I consider to be a valid point about this on the EOI group list. This is just an implementation issue that relates to the GNSO recommendations for an orderly and predictable rollout. The EOI would not change the application process, or any recommendations of the GNSO. It just provides better order and predictability for the application process. Stéphane Le 10 nov. 2009 à 00:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes. I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise. Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws. Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions. Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council. Other thoughts are welcome. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hello all. Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting. Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group. If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com> Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward. Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here: 1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16. We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution). In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most. One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday. I am of course available for questions, as is Liz. Thanks for your participation, Antony
FYI, The group has organised two teleconference meetings. The first one was at the beginning of the week and the second one is today. I have been informed that both calls were organised without ICANN resources. I think this is an important piece of information that is worth highlighting. I am told today's meeting will be the group's last. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12 nov. 2009 à 22:14, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :
I agree with Chuck and Stephane, except there are other parts of the GNSO Recommendations that also must be followed in any EoI process, particularly the communication plan.
Also, it is possible that any EoI process will lead to efforts to categorize and prioritize the many applications that are expected. That would be a variance from Council’s recommendations, and should fall within Council’s remit to do that work if necessary. Conflicts of interest will probably be an issue at that point, for many of us.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:05 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
I don't think the EOI work needs to fall under a PDP process. Tim has made what I consider to be a valid point about this on the EOI group list. This is just an implementation issue that relates to the GNSO recommendations for an orderly and predictable rollout. The EOI would not change the application process, or any recommendations of the GNSO. It just provides better order and predictability for the application process.
Stéphane
Le 10 nov. 2009 à 00:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes.
I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions.
Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council.
Other thoughts are welcome.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hello all.
Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting.
Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group.
If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <as@epag.de>, bdelachapelle@gmail.com, Johannes Lenz- Hawliczek <lenz@dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@comlaude.com>, mcgradyp@gtlaw.com , Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <tim@godaddy.com
Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward.
Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here:
1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting
If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.
One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday.
I am of course available for questions, as is Liz.
Thanks for your participation,
Antony
Perhaps I have missed something, but from the ALAC-person-who-is-not-representing-ALAC in the group, this is a completely non-ICANN endeavour - mailing list is hosted by one of the members and no ICANN money for teleconferences. I haven't seen a request for staff resources, but perhaps I missed it. Alan At 09/11/2009 06:51 PM, KnobenW@telekom.de wrote:
I understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI solution provided as soon as possible although the board has not yet decided upon, and I welcome this initiative. On the other hand the approach of this group formation looks a bit strange to me. From the membership structure they looks lik a GNSO WG (I wonder whether it has been discussed within the constituencies/SGs). They also request ICANN staff ressources which are needed for other activities already in the pipe. Has this already been accepted by ICANN? Ressources are rare. Is this the way to organize the WG-model based work in future? I don't think so.
I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as the board on how to deal with policy development issues. If we start it this way we may be confronted with more particular interest groups in future trying to bypass the GNSO.
Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear whether and to what extent the EoI is of interest for our work.
Comments welcome.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Hello All, The ICANN Board has been informed of the Expression of Interest working group. See correspondence at: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ dated 6 November 2009. I expect that ICANN staff will take the output of this working group, along with any other community input, into consideration, prior to the next ICANN Board meeting on 9 Dec 2009 (or 10 Dec for me). Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks, Bruce and others, for keeoing the council updated to avoid misunderstandings. Understanding the potential applicants' stress with time delays I can live with this approach. Like Chuck said, I also expect that the group's outcome will influence the council's work. So a certain kind of modus operandi seems to be needed. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. November 2009 04:50 An: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hello All, The ICANN Board has been informed of the Expression of Interest working group. See correspondence at: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ dated 6 November 2009. I expect that ICANN staff will take the output of this working group, along with any other community input, into consideration, prior to the next ICANN Board meeting on 9 Dec 2009 (or 10 Dec for me). Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Stéphane Van Gelder