Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello, Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council. Best, 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 ***********************************************************
Please forward this to your SGs/Constituencies right away and request feedback. The Council will need to make a decision on whether to submit the comments or some revised version of them in our 28 Jan meeting. If anyone wants to make a motion in that regard, motions are needed by tomorrow, Wednesday, 20 January. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:40 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
Bill, there is a line in the draft which says "We agree with the draft that Review team members are not to "represent" particularistic interests, and that they should be broadly neutral and focused on the collective good of the ICANN community as a whole." Can you point out where the document it says this? I can find a bunch of references saying that the do represent the AC/SOs, but not the opposite. Alan At 19/01/2010 10:40 AM, William Drake wrote:
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
Hi Alan On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Bill, there is a line in the draft which says "We agree with the draft that Review team members are not to "represent" particularistic interests, and that they should be broadly neutral and focused on the collective good of the ICANN community as a whole."
Can you point out where the document it says this? I can find a bunch of references saying that the do represent the AC/SOs, but not the opposite.
You raise a valid concern, and perhaps the language could be clearer. There is of course representation to the extent that AC/SOs nominate "their" people. The question is, what happens from there? The draft proposes that the call for candidates include, as a desired skill, capacity to make "abstractions from personal opinions." This is poorly worded; I presume it's supposed to mean judgments that are not based on those opinions, rather than abstract inferential reasoning that is based on them. It goes on to say more clearly that "the individual opinions of evaluators should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings;" that the Selectors should pick people based on their skills (by inference, not their or their nominating group's opinions); that there should not be a public comment on the identity and personal characteristics of members; and that the teams, once constituted, are to have autonomy in selecting operating procedures, terms of reference, definition of tools and targets, gathering data, and conducting neutral evaluations rigorously based on indicators and evidence. So the drafting team read all this as implying that reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders. Of course, this is aspirational, and in reality one's personal/group views may color how evidence is assessed, at least to some extent, but then that'd be open to challenge by colleagues if it crosses the line. It was with all this in mind that we added the language about RT members needing to periodically update their AC/SOs on main trends, being able to solicit input from their AC/SOs, and being prepared to pass along unsolicited input from their AC/SOs, when really merited. The hope was that this would balance RT autonomy and obligation to assess neutrally with an appropriate level of openness and communication to one's AC/SO. If you don't think that's sufficient, and that RT members should in fact be there wearing the hats of their nominating entity and start sentences like "well, from the perspective of xxx, we think that....," of something similar, feel free to propose language to that effect and see if you get takers. It just wasn't how the drafting team read the doc or envisioned the process, and there's at least some grounds for believing that approach would result in a more politicized, negotiation/bargaining style of interaction. Cheers, Bill
Thanks Bill for your response to Alan's question. In my opinion as one member of the DT, I concur with your assessment. And I also wonder if it might be good for us to add the gist of what you say in your first paragragh to our comments. Maybe something like this: "The Affirmation Reviews Discussion Draft lists the 'capacity to make abstractions from personal opinions' as a desired skill for review team members and goes on to say 'the individual opinions of evaluators should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings'. The GNSO Council therefore concluded that the reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders." In my personal opinion, this would be a helpful clarification to our suggestion that there be communication between the reviewers and their respective SOs/ACs, making it clear that we do not intend such communication to serve as a means for SOs and ACs to advance their agendas but rather to be a means to provide relevant information as needed in the review process. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:17 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hi Alan
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Bill, there is a line in the draft which says "We agree
with the draft that Review team members are not to "represent" particularistic interests, and that they should be broadly neutral and focused on the collective good of the ICANN community as a whole."
Can you point out where the document it says this? I can
find a bunch of references saying that the do represent the AC/SOs, but not the opposite.
You raise a valid concern, and perhaps the language could be clearer. There is of course representation to the extent that AC/SOs nominate "their" people. The question is, what happens from there? The draft proposes that the call for candidates include, as a desired skill, capacity to make "abstractions from personal opinions." This is poorly worded; I presume it's supposed to mean judgments that are not based on those opinions, rather than abstract inferential reasoning that is based on them. It goes on to say more clearly that "the individual opinions of evaluators should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings;" that the Selectors should pick people based on their skills (by inference, not their or their nominating group's opinions); that there should not be a public comment on the identity and personal characteristics of members; and that the teams, once constituted, are to have autonomy in selecting operating procedures, terms of reference, definition o! f tools and targets, gathering data, and conducting neutral evaluations rigorously based on indicators and evidence. So the drafting team read all this as implying that reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders. Of course, this is aspirational, and in reality one's personal/group views may color how evidence is assessed, at least to some extent, but then that'd be open to challenge by colleagues if it crosses the line.
It was with all this in mind that we added the language about RT members needing to periodically update their AC/SOs on main trends, being able to solicit input from their AC/SOs, and being prepared to pass along unsolicited input from their AC/SOs, when really merited. The hope was that this would balance RT autonomy and obligation to assess neutrally with an appropriate level of openness and communication to one's AC/SO.
If you don't think that's sufficient, and that RT members should in fact be there wearing the hats of their nominating entity and start sentences like "well, from the perspective of xxx, we think that....," of something similar, feel free to propose language to that effect and see if you get takers. It just wasn't how the drafting team read the doc or envisioned the process, and there's at least some grounds for believing that approach would result in a more politicized, negotiation/bargaining style of interaction.
Cheers,
Bill
Hi Chuck On Jan 20, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Bill for your response to Alan's question. In my opinion as one member of the DT, I concur with your assessment. And I also wonder if it might be good for us to add the gist of what you say in your first paragragh to our comments. Maybe something like this:
"The Affirmation Reviews Discussion Draft lists the 'capacity to make abstractions from personal opinions' as a desired skill for review team members and goes on to say 'the individual opinions of evaluators should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings'. The GNSO Council therefore concluded that the reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders."
In my personal opinion, this would be a helpful clarification to our suggestion that there be communication between the reviewers and their respective SOs/ACs, making it clear that we do not intend such communication to serve as a means for SOs and ACs to advance their agendas but rather to be a means to provide relevant information as needed in the review process.
Personally, I kind of feel like we already make these points, maybe not as much in bold and underlined but they're there. We can leave the text the dt approved stable and try to get consensus, or open it up and see what happens...whatever people want. Also would be good to know if Alan is satisfied enough or wants to suggest a different approach. And we need a motion no? Bill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:17 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hi Alan
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Bill, there is a line in the draft which says "We agree
with the draft that Review team members are not to "represent" particularistic interests, and that they should be broadly neutral and focused on the collective good of the ICANN community as a whole."
Can you point out where the document it says this? I can
find a bunch of references saying that the do represent the AC/SOs, but not the opposite.
You raise a valid concern, and perhaps the language could be clearer. There is of course representation to the extent that AC/SOs nominate "their" people. The question is, what happens from there? The draft proposes that the call for candidates include, as a desired skill, capacity to make "abstractions from personal opinions." This is poorly worded; I presume it's supposed to mean judgments that are not based on those opinions, rather than abstract inferential reasoning that is based on them. It goes on to say more clearly that "the individual opinions of evaluators should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings;" that the Selectors should pick people based on their skills (by inference, not their or their nominating group's opinions); that there should not be a public comment on the identity and personal characteristics of members; and that the teams, once constituted, are to have autonomy in selecting operating procedures, terms of reference, definition o! f tools and targets, gathering data, and conducting neutral evaluations rigorously based on indicators and evidence. So the drafting team read all this as implying that reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders. Of course, this is aspirational, and in reality one's personal/group views may color how evidence is assessed, at least to some extent, but then that'd be open to challenge by colleagues if it crosses the line.
It was with all this in mind that we added the language about RT members needing to periodically update their AC/SOs on main trends, being able to solicit input from their AC/SOs, and being prepared to pass along unsolicited input from their AC/SOs, when really merited. The hope was that this would balance RT autonomy and obligation to assess neutrally with an appropriate level of openness and communication to one's AC/SO.
If you don't think that's sufficient, and that RT members should in fact be there wearing the hats of their nominating entity and start sentences like "well, from the perspective of xxx, we think that....," of something similar, feel free to propose language to that effect and see if you get takers. It just wasn't how the drafting team read the doc or envisioned the process, and there's at least some grounds for believing that approach would result in a more politicized, negotiation/bargaining style of interaction.
Cheers,
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 ***********************************************************
It would be helpful to have a motion today. It can be simple. That way Councilors can easily forward the motion to their respective groups for feedback and direction. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hi Chuck
On Jan 20, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Bill for your response to Alan's question. In my opinion as one member of the DT, I concur with your assessment. And I also wonder if it might be good for us to add the gist of what you say in your first paragragh to our comments. Maybe something like this:
"The Affirmation Reviews Discussion Draft lists the 'capacity to make abstractions from personal opinions' as a desired skill for review team members and goes on to say 'the individual opinions of evaluators should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings'. The GNSO Council therefore concluded that the reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders."
In my personal opinion, this would be a helpful
clarification to our suggestion that there be communication between the reviewers and their respective SOs/ACs, making it clear that we do not intend such communication to serve as a means for SOs and ACs to advance their agendas but rather to be a means to provide relevant information as needed in the review process.
Personally, I kind of feel like we already make these points, maybe not as much in bold and underlined but they're there. We can leave the text the dt approved stable and try to get consensus, or open it up and see what happens...whatever people want.
Also would be good to know if Alan is satisfied enough or wants to suggest a different approach.
And we need a motion no?
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:17 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hi Alan
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Bill, there is a line in the draft which says "We agree
with the draft that Review team members are not to "represent" particularistic interests, and that they should be broadly neutral and focused on the collective good of the ICANN community as a whole."
Can you point out where the document it says this? I can
find a bunch of references saying that the do represent
the AC/SOs,
but not the opposite.
You raise a valid concern, and perhaps the language could be clearer. There is of course representation to the extent that AC/SOs nominate "their" people. The question is, what happens from there? The draft proposes that the call for candidates include, as a desired skill, capacity to make "abstractions from personal opinions." This is poorly worded; I presume it's supposed to mean judgments that are not based on those opinions, rather than abstract inferential reasoning that is based on them. It goes on to say more clearly that "the individual opinions of evaluators should not interfere with the rigorous analysis of findings;" that the Selectors should pick people based on their skills (by inference, not their or their nominating group's opinions); that there should not be a public comment on the identity and personal characteristics of members; and that the teams, once constituted, are to have autonomy in selecting operating procedures, terms of reference, definition o! f tools and targets, gathering data, and conducting neutral evaluations rigorously based on indicators and evidence. So the drafting team read all this as implying that reviewers are there to act as autonomous experts who'd neutrally assess information with an eye toward advancing the collective good, rather than promoting the private agendas of particular stakeholders. Of course, this is aspirational, and in reality one's personal/group views may color how evidence is assessed, at least to some extent, but then that'd be open to challenge by colleagues if it crosses the line.
It was with all this in mind that we added the language about RT members needing to periodically update their AC/SOs on main trends, being able to solicit input from their AC/SOs, and being prepared to pass along unsolicited input from their AC/SOs, when really merited. The hope was that this would balance RT autonomy and obligation to assess neutrally with an appropriate level of openness and communication to one's AC/SO.
If you don't think that's sufficient, and that RT members should in fact be there wearing the hats of their nominating entity and start sentences like "well, from the perspective of xxx, we think that....," of something similar, feel free to propose language to that effect and see if you get takers. It just wasn't how the drafting team read the doc or envisioned the process, and there's at least some grounds for believing that approach would result in a more politicized, negotiation/bargaining style of interaction.
Cheers,
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 ***********************************************************
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response. Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response. Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR Hello, Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council. Best, Bill
Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST). The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves organize their support teams rather than to constitute support teams in advance. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
I would accept this as a friendly amendment. Stephan, as the seconder of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly? Glen - please add this amendment to the motion. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST). The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves organize their support teams rather than to constitute support teams in advance.
Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
Hello, I would like to submit this following edit regarding this part : *"Obviously, any such communications would need to respect reasonable* *restrictions like the review teams’ adherence to the Chatham House rule, and the SO/ACs should be expected to exercise prudence and to only make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns." * with that one *"It is expected that any communications or other input sought and received will be provided in good faith, and that SOs/ACs will exercise prudence and make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns. In exceptional circumstances, a SO or AC, the review teams or members thereof may consider it necessary to subject such communications or other input to reasonable restrictions such as the Chatham House rule, and where this is the case, the relevant parties to the affected communication or input shall, as far as possible, be informed in advance."* Regards Rafik 2010/1/28 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
I would accept this as a friendly amendment. Stephan, as the seconder of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly?
Glen - please add this amendment to the motion.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST). The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves organize their support teams rather than to constitute support teams in advance.
Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
Yes Le 27 janv. 2010 à 21:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
I would accept this as a friendly amendment. Stephan, as the seconder of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly?
Glen - please add this amendment to the motion.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST). The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves organize their support teams rather than to constitute support teams in advance.
Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
what about Rafik's amendment, submitted on behalf of NCSG:
I would like to submit this following edit regarding this part :
"Obviously, any such communications would need to respect reasonable restrictions like the review teams’ adherence to the Chatham House rule, and the SO/ACs should be expected to exercise prudence and to only make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns."
with that one
"It is expected that any communications or other input sought and received will be provided in good faith, and that SOs/ACs will exercise prudence and make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns. In exceptional circumstances, a SO or AC, the review teams or members thereof may consider it necessary to subject such communications or other input to reasonable restrictions such as the Chatham House rule, and where this is the case, the relevant parties to the affected communication or input shall, as far as possible, be informed in advance."
On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Yes
Le 27 janv. 2010 à 21:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
I would accept this as a friendly amendment. Stephan, as the seconder of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly?
Glen - please add this amendment to the motion.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST). The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves organize their support teams rather than to constitute support teams in advance.
Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
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 am not sure how the rules will apply in exceptional circumstances. The Chatham House rules require non attribution in general (somewhat like the MAG) so not sure how would this rule be implemented ONLY in exceptional circumstances and how this would be communicated in advance. How will this work? Hope I haven't misunderstood the amendment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:18:21 To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; <ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR what about Rafik's amendment, submitted on behalf of NCSG:
I would like to submit this following edit regarding this part :
"Obviously, any such communications would need to respect reasonable restrictions like the review teams’ adherence to the Chatham House rule, and the SO/ACs should be expected to exercise prudence and to only make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns."
with that one
"It is expected that any communications or other input sought and received will be provided in good faith, and that SOs/ACs will exercise prudence and make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns. In exceptional circumstances, a SO or AC, the review teams or members thereof may consider it necessary to subject such communications or other input to reasonable restrictions such as the Chatham House rule, and where this is the case, the relevant parties to the affected communication or input shall, as far as possible, be informed in advance."
On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Yes
Le 27 janv. 2010 à 21:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
I would accept this as a friendly amendment. Stephan, as the seconder of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly?
Glen - please add this amendment to the motion.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST). The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves organize their support teams rather than to constitute support teams in advance.
Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response.
Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response.
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
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 ***********************************************************
Stephane is in a meeting at the moment and probably will not be able to respond until the meeting. Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:18 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR what about Rafik's amendment, submitted on behalf of NCSG: I would like to submit this following edit regarding this part : "Obviously, any such communications would need to respect reasonable restrictions like the review teams' adherence to the Chatham House rule, and the SO/ACs should be expected to exercise prudence and to only make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns." with that one "It is expected that any communications or other input sought and received will be provided in good faith, and that SOs/ACs will exercise prudence and make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns. In exceptional circumstances, a SO or AC, the review teams or members thereof may consider it necessary to subject such communications or other input to reasonable restrictions such as the Chatham House rule, and where this is the case, the relevant parties to the affected communication or input shall, as far as possible, be informed in advance." On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Yes Le 27 janv. 2010 à 21:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : I would accept this as a friendly amendment. Stephan, as the seconder of the motion, would you also accept it as friendly? Glen - please add this amendment to the motion. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to suggest the following edit regarding "Support Teams" (ST). The draft amendment attached is targeted to provide more flexibility to the Review Teams in order to let themselves organize their support teams rather than to constitute support teams in advance. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 23:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR Thanks Wolf. If you could propose a suggested edit, it would be very helpful. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR Following a consultation within the ISPCP constituency I'd like to address the creation of "Support Teams" (ST). There must be a clear distinction between the RTs and potential STs in order to avoid STs emerging to "shadow" RTs. So the composition of the ST pools has carefully to be taken into consideration or should even be regulated. If applicable this should be expressed in the council response. Apart from that the ISPCP constituency endorses the draft response. Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 16:40 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR Hello, Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council. Best, 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 ***********************************************************
For those who may be interested, the ALAC statement can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_comment_on_aoc_processes. Alan At 19/01/2010 10:40 AM, William Drake wrote:
Hello,
Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our respective SGs and in the Council.
Best,
Bill
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake -
Zahid Jamil