Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 27 October 2021 Part 1 and 2
Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on Wednesday, 27 October 2021, part 1 and 2 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=VJZ4HFSDAqi8xbWCH1QdnlYHCscwUVxIRs2sVJWonVI&s=LtHAxrGECvjzBZS-IMiftG_6sd2rnsdL4iqkUOHsJvI&e=> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 12 November 2021. Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri
Hi Terri (and everyone): I wish to offer an amendment to the minutes with regard to the statement I made on behalf of the RySG during the discussion of the EPDP Phase 2A motion. I suggest the amendment for a couple reasons: The original minutes did not capture the point that the RySG accepted the “in-scope” determination The original minutes captured only a portion of the arguments made (both in number and completeness). To lay them out fully would make the minutes too long, so instead, I stated that the RySG made a series of arguments and why. Copying the Council for transparency (of course) but also as a check to make sure this was what you heard, as my intent and statements always don’t match. For ease of review, I have the original and suggested minutes below. Best regards, Kurt - RySG ORIGINAL Kurt Pritz, GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), commented on the issue of scope in regards to recommendation (Rec) 1. He explained that the understanding that the RySG should have escalated concerns formally could have happened had there been disagreement with the EPDP P2A Chair. However, given the Chair transferred the final decision on scope to the Council, there was no immediate need for the RySG to pursue a formal escalation. It was also mentioned that once the scope issue was raised within the EPDP P2A, the GNSO Council Liaison was expected to communicate this to the GNSO Council. On a substantive level, he added that rather than a decision by Council leadership, the RySG had expected the opportunity to further discuss the issue especially within the Council’s role as policy manager. REVISED Kurt Pritz, GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), commented on the issue of scope in regard to Recommendation 1. He stated that the RySG, having raised the scope issue, accepted the Leadership determination that Recommendation 1 was within the EPDP Charter’s scope and was prepared to vote. He went on to state that the RySG did not find the points made in support of the determination in the Chair’s email to be persuasive and laid out the arguments to contest each point. He indicated that the more important point is that requests by any stakeholder group for a Council determination on an issue should be honored by having a Council discussion rather than an immediate determination and that such a discussion fits within the Council’s role as policy manager.
On Nov 2, 2021, at 7:16 PM, Terri Agnew via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on Wednesday, 27 October 2021, part 1 and 2 for your review.
If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=VJZ4HFSDAqi8xbWCH1QdnlYHCscwUVxIRs2sVJWonVI&s=LtHAxrGECvjzBZS-IMiftG_6sd2rnsdL4iqkUOHsJvI&e=> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 12 November 2021.
Thank you.
Kind Regards, Terri
<27 October 2021 part I Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting (1).docx><27 October 2021 part II Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting .docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hello Kurt, We acknowledge receipt and have noted this change to the minutes. Have a wonderful weekend! Best, Julie From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz via Gnso-secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Reply-To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:39 PM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-secs] [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 27 October 2021 Part 1 and 2 Hi Terri (and everyone): I wish to offer an amendment to the minutes with regard to the statement I made on behalf of the RySG during the discussion of the EPDP Phase 2A motion. I suggest the amendment for a couple reasons: 1. The original minutes did not capture the point that the RySG accepted the “in-scope” determination 2. The original minutes captured only a portion of the arguments made (both in number and completeness). To lay them out fully would make the minutes too long, so instead, I stated that the RySG made a series of arguments and why. Copying the Council for transparency (of course) but also as a check to make sure this was what you heard, as my intent and statements always don’t match. For ease of review, I have the original and suggested minutes below. Best regards, Kurt - RySG ORIGINAL Kurt Pritz, GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), commented on the issue of scope in regards to recommendation (Rec) 1. He explained that the understanding that the RySG should have escalated concerns formally could have happened had there been disagreement with the EPDP P2A Chair. However, given the Chair transferred the final decision on scope to the Council, there was no immediate need for the RySG to pursue a formal escalation. It was also mentioned that once the scope issue was raised within the EPDP P2A, the GNSO Council Liaison was expected to communicate this to the GNSO Council. On a substantive level, he added that rather than a decision by Council leadership, the RySG had expected the opportunity to further discuss the issue especially within the Council’s role as policy manager. REVISED Kurt Pritz, GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), commented on the issue of scope in regard to Recommendation 1. He stated that the RySG, having raised the scope issue, accepted the Leadership determination that Recommendation 1 was within the EPDP Charter’s scope and was prepared to vote. He went on to state that the RySG did not find the points made in support of the determination in the Chair’s email to be persuasive and laid out the arguments to contest each point. He indicated that the more important point is that requests by any stakeholder group for a Council determination on an issue should be honored by having a Council discussion rather than an immediate determination and that such a discussion fits within the Council’s role as policy manager. On Nov 2, 2021, at 7:16 PM, Terri Agnew via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on Wednesday, 27 October 2021, part 1 and 2 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=VJZ4HFSDAqi8xbWCH1QdnlYHCscwUVxIRs2sVJWonVI&s=LtHAxrGECvjzBZS-IMiftG_6sd2rnsdL4iqkUOHsJvI&e=> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 12 November 2021. Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri <27 October 2021 part I Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting (1).docx><27 October 2021 part II Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting .docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Julie Bisland -
Kurt Pritz -
Terri Agnew