Draft Schedule for GNSO related meetings in LA
Dear Council Members, Please find attached the proposed draft schedule for the LA meetings. The draft schedule indicates mainly the meetings related to the GNSO Council and constituencies. The schedule will be posted on the GNSO master calendar http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ and the constituency meeting agendas will be added to the online version. The GNSO/ICANN Board/Senior staff dinner will be on Monday evening, 29 October, just after the cocktail. I will let you know the room name and the themes for discussion nearer the time This schedule is subject to change. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hi, Thanks, Glen for publishing this. I just wanted to let everyone know that we are working had to try and fit everything in that needs to be considered. And trying to give each topic enough time for full consideration. One thing I would like to ask is that the meetings on 27/28 be formal, with attendance, so that as much as possible if we need to make decisions we will have the proper quorum to do so. I don't expect us to make any major decisions, though it has been suggested that we may want to discuss the disposition of our IDN ccTLD report during the Saturday meeting. We may certainly want to take decisions on how to proceed on something. We will, of course wait until the 31 Oct meeting for the major decisions that are currently scheduled for that meeting, and would need a prior motion for any other major decision we would want to take during the meetings on the 27/28th. thanks a. On 18 okt 2007, at 18.13, GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG wrote:
Dear Council Members,
Please find attached the proposed draft schedule for the LA meetings. The draft schedule indicates mainly the meetings related to the GNSO Council and constituencies.
The schedule will be posted on the GNSO master calendar http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ and the constituency meeting agendas will be added to the online version.
The GNSO/ICANN Board/Senior staff dinner will be on Monday evening, 29 October, just after the cocktail. I will let you know the room name and the themes for discussion nearer the time
This schedule is subject to change.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you,
Kind regards
Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <Los Angeles GNSO SCHEDULE.doc>
Avri, I do understand the mess we are in with no decisions taken at the last call and a Council meeting now blended in with a public forum. However, it is not appropriate to use the Sat and Sun meetings as substitute Council meetings. Firstly, our by-laws require an agenda and 7 days notice: ie certainty not maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Secondly, the Sat and Sun meetings come BEFORE Constituency meetings: surely the reason for delaying the decision making at our last call, was to be able to discuss in the Constituencies? Thirdly, whereas I am all in favour or improving outreach in the public forum, it is not acceptable to compromise the integrity of our Council meeting as a result. Either we can achieve what Council must or we cannot. If the new format stops Council functioning, the new format needs revisiting. So, to end on my usual positive note. By all means lets use Sat and Sun to discuss the issues, but with no votes. Then, the time needed on the actual Council meeting (Wed Oct 31) can be short and sweet to do the voting. Indeed, we could adopt a parliamentary convention whereby all votes are taken one after the other in a set time frame. That would ensure those not in LA could phone in at exactly the right time to vote, (a useful idea given the fact we are told we cant vote using proxies). Philip
Hi, A few responses: On 19 okt 2007, at 10.34, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I do understand the mess we are in with no decisions taken at the last call and a Council meeting now blended in with a public forum.
I do not beleive we are in a mess. I am sorry you do. I believe we have a lot of work to do. And we have to do it as appropriately as possible.
However, it is not appropriate to use the Sat and Sun meetings as substitute Council meetings.
I do not understand why it is not appropriate for these to _be_ council meetings. There is no rule that says we can have only 1 meeting while in a face to face meeting. I think that we can use our time as profitably as possible and if that involves having more hours of meeting, I see no rules that bar it. Now if most of the council members believe that it is inappropriate, that is a different story.
Firstly, our by-laws require an agenda and 7 days notice: ie certainty not maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
We have an agenda as of now and there is still more then a week before each of those meetings. and I did mention that any motions would have to be submitted in advance other then minor ones (e.g. we vote to thank X for Y. or we need a sub group to do draft Z). As is always the case.
Secondly, the Sat and Sun meetings come BEFORE Constituency meetings: surely the reason for delaying the decision making at our last call, was to be able to discuss in the Constituencies?
Yes, and i was not suggesting we make any major decisions that have never been discussed before. On each possible decisions, as was done in the past, the council members can indicate whether they are ready or not for a vote and whether they need to take the issue back to their constituencies. So I am not suggesting anything different then what we have done in the past. And if no one suggests any significant motions in time for the meeting, then there won't be any significant motions that might need constituency pre-discussion. I am aware that some decisions are of such a major importance that council members need to go back to the constituencies before they can vote. On the other hand, there are other decisions, e.g. to constitute an ad hoc group to do something, that may be possible for a council member to vote on without returning for specific instructions.
Thirdly, whereas I am all in favour or improving outreach in the public forum, it is not acceptable to compromise the integrity of our Council meeting as a result. Either we can achieve what Council must or we cannot. If the new format stops Council functioning, the new format needs revisiting.
Are you suggesting that it does compromise the council's integrity? Certainly after we have tried this format once, we should review it and can either fine tune it or change. We are doing this as a response to comments that were made by the commenting community, so I suggest we see if it works before we decide that it compromises our integrity. And yes, a change in one place, may require some concomitant changes in other places.
So, to end on my usual positive note. By all means lets use Sat and Sun to discuss the issues, but with no votes.
I would like to hear other council member's opinions on this last point (on any of the points really, but especially on this last one)
Then, the time needed on the actual Council meeting (Wed Oct 31) can be short and sweet to do the voting.
Well we still need to listen to what is said by the community and then consider what has been said before voting. thanks a.
Avri, I will be in transit most of the 27th (Saturday), so I would prefer to hold off on voting until the regularly scheduled Council meeting. I agree with Philip that the Sat & Sun meetings have traditionally been used to accomplish useful Council work, but not to transact Council business. Councilors have tended to schedule their time and travel accordingly. Greg __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Greg Ruth wrote:
Avri, I will be in transit most of the 27th (Saturday), so I would prefer to hold off on voting until the regularly scheduled Council meeting. I agree with Philip that the Sat & Sun meetings have traditionally been used to accomplish useful Council work, but not to transact Council business. Councilors have tended to schedule their time and travel accordingly.
Greg
Thanks - but could you please help me to better understand what is "Council work" and what is - obviously different in your mail - "Council business"? Norbert -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
I am not in favor of voting during our weekend meetings on such short notice. Although I will arrive on Friday night, it would not surprise me if that was not true for all Councilors, and that some of our colleagues may have made travel arrangements based on the reasonable assumption that the working meetings were just that. ( Personally, I would prefer that we have final agendas set no less than 30 days before the first "working" meeting so that we can make the most inexpensive flight arrangements.) Further, the IPC has scheduled the majority of its decision-making for the constituency meeting on Tuesday. While I understand that we could stop just short of voting, it seems likely to me that views may change in the intervening days such that time spent during the working meetings may not be most efficiently utilized. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 10:58 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Re: Draft Schedule for GNSO related meetings in LA Hi, A few responses: On 19 okt 2007, at 10.34, Philip Sheppard wrote: I do understand the mess we are in with no decisions taken at the last call and a Council meeting now blended in with a public forum. I do not beleive we are in a mess. I am sorry you do. I believe we have a lot of work to do. And we have to do it as appropriately as possible. However, it is not appropriate to use the Sat and Sun meetings as substitute Council meetings. I do not understand why it is not appropriate for these to _be_ council meetings. There is no rule that says we can have only 1 meeting while in a face to face meeting. I think that we can use our time as profitably as possible and if that involves having more hours of meeting, I see no rules that bar it. Now if most of the council members believe that it is inappropriate, that is a different story. Firstly, our by-laws require an agenda and 7 days notice: ie certainty not maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We have an agenda as of now and there is still more then a week before each of those meetings. and I did mention that any motions would have to be submitted in advance other then minor ones (e.g. we vote to thank X for Y. or we need a sub group to do draft Z). As is always the case. Secondly, the Sat and Sun meetings come BEFORE Constituency meetings: surely the reason for delaying the decision making at our last call, was to be able to discuss in the Constituencies? Yes, and i was not suggesting we make any major decisions that have never been discussed before. On each possible decisions, as was done in the past, the council members can indicate whether they are ready or not for a vote and whether they need to take the issue back to their constituencies. So I am not suggesting anything different then what we have done in the past. And if no one suggests any significant motions in time for the meeting, then there won't be any significant motions that might need constituency pre-discussion. I am aware that some decisions are of such a major importance that council members need to go back to the constituencies before they can vote. On the other hand, there are other decisions, e.g. to constitute an ad hoc group to do something, that may be possible for a council member to vote on without returning for specific instructions. Thirdly, whereas I am all in favour or improving outreach in the public forum, it is not acceptable to compromise the integrity of our Council meeting as a result. Either we can achieve what Council must or we cannot. If the new format stops Council functioning, the new format needs revisiting. Are you suggesting that it does compromise the council's integrity? Certainly after we have tried this format once, we should review it and can either fine tune it or change. We are doing this as a response to comments that were made by the commenting community, so I suggest we see if it works before we decide that it compromises our integrity. And yes, a change in one place, may require some concomitant changes in other places. So, to end on my usual positive note. By all means lets use Sat and Sun to discuss the issues, but with no votes. I would like to hear other council member's opinions on this last point (on any of the points really, but especially on this last one) Then, the time needed on the actual Council meeting (Wed Oct 31) can be short and sweet to do the voting. Well we still need to listen to what is said by the community and then consider what has been said before voting. thanks a.
Thanks, Avri, for your response. I share your view that we have a lot of work but we are not in a mess. Maybe I can say so quite relaxed, because we might have to say that in Cambodia, we and the country are in a continuing mess - which is somewhat true - but that does not mean we are not also trying to be responsible - and that is: to respond to what is required as well as we can. Best greetings form Cambodia - and if anybody wants to read what I mean from here, have a look at the editorial which I just wrote for this week's Mirror: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com/2007-10-21-being-united-%E2%80%93-not-di... Norbert = Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
A few responses:
On 19 okt 2007, at 10.34, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I do understand the mess we are in with no decisions taken at the last call and a Council meeting now blended in with a public forum.
I do not beleive we are in a mess. I am sorry you do. I believe we have a lot of work to do. And we have to do it as appropriately as possible.
However, it is not appropriate to use the Sat and Sun meetings as substitute Council meetings.
I do not understand why it is not appropriate for these to _be_ council meetings. There is no rule that says we can have only 1 meeting while in a face to face meeting. I think that we can use our time as profitably as possible and if that involves having more hours of meeting, I see no rules that bar it.
Now if most of the council members believe that it is inappropriate, that is a different story.
Firstly, our by-laws require an agenda and 7 days notice: ie certainty not maybe it is,
maybe it isn't.
We have an agenda as of now and there is still more then a week before each of those meetings. and I did mention that any motions would have to be submitted in advance other then minor ones (e.g. we vote to thank X for Y. or we need a sub group to do draft Z). As is always the case.
Secondly, the Sat and Sun meetings come BEFORE Constituency meetings: surely the reason for delaying the decision making at our last call, was to be able to discuss in the Constituencies?
Yes, and i was not suggesting we make any major decisions that have never been discussed before. On each possible decisions, as was done in the past, the council members can indicate whether they are ready or not for a vote and whether they need to take the issue back to their constituencies. So I am not suggesting anything different then what we have done in the past. And if no one suggests any significant motions in time for the meeting, then there won't be any significant motions that might need constituency pre-discussion.
I am aware that some decisions are of such a major importance that council members need to go back to the constituencies before they can vote. On the other hand, there are other decisions, e.g. to constitute an ad hoc group to do something, that may be possible for a council member to vote on without returning for specific instructions.
Thirdly, whereas I am all in favour or improving outreach in the public forum, it is not acceptable to compromise the integrity of our Council meeting as a result. Either we can achieve what Council must or we cannot. If the new format stops Council functioning, the new format needs revisiting.
Are you suggesting that it does compromise the council's integrity? Certainly after we have tried this format once, we should review it and can either fine tune it or change. We are doing this as a response to comments that were made by the commenting community, so I suggest we see if it works before we decide that it compromises our integrity. And yes, a change in one place, may require some concomitant changes in other places.
So, to end on my usual positive note. By all means lets use Sat and Sun to discuss the issues, but with no votes.
I would like to hear other council member's opinions on this last point (on any of the points really, but especially on this last one)
Then, the time needed on the actual Council meeting (Wed Oct 31) can be short and sweet to do the voting.
Well we still need to listen to what is said by the community and then consider what has been said before voting.
thanks
a. -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:
Background Proxy voting is not allowed under the current by laws. A request to the Board amend the bylaws is possible. Council agreed to await the publication of the next GNSO review report Update There is not a word on proxy voting in the October 15 report from the BGC WG. Proposal Council request staff to write a short options paper on conditions for proxy voting (eg who can hold the proxy, how many proxies, notification of proxy, withdrawal of proxy etc). Staff can consider the old DNSO proxy voting guidelines as a starting point. (They worked well and were not abused.) Council discusses the options and then instructs staff to draft a resolution to request of Board the preferred option. Philip
Hi, Is this being offered as a motion for the 31 October meeting? a. On 22 okt 2007, at 09.50, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Background Proxy voting is not allowed under the current by laws. A request to the Board amend the bylaws is possible. Council agreed to await the publication of the next GNSO review report
Update There is not a word on proxy voting in the October 15 report from the BGC WG.
Proposal Council request staff to write a short options paper on conditions for proxy voting (eg who can hold the proxy, how many proxies, notification of proxy, withdrawal of proxy etc). Staff can consider the old DNSO proxy voting guidelines as a starting point. (They worked well and were not abused.) Council discusses the options and then instructs staff to draft a resolution to request of Board the preferred option.
Philip
On 22-Oct-07, at 9:50 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Update There is not a word on proxy voting in the October 15 report from the BGC WG.
The BGC makes some very specific recommendations concerning the role of voting in the new structure. We should consider the impact of the move towards strategic management and away from voting. If the process works well, the issue of proxies should be a moot point. Isn't now the time to start thinking along these lines rather than continuing to build out the adversarial structure that we are mired in now? We have the BGC recommendations - let's focus on making them work. For the record, I will not vote in favor of any motion to modify our voting porcesses in advance of the implementation of any of the recommendations of the BGC WG report that we agree to implement. -r
I support Philip's proposal for draft options paper on conditions for proxy voting. Bilal ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:50 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Proxy voting Background Proxy voting is not allowed under the current by laws. A request to the Board amend the bylaws is possible. Council agreed to await the publication of the next GNSO review report Update There is not a word on proxy voting in the October 15 report from the BGC WG. Proposal Council request staff to write a short options paper on conditions for proxy voting (eg who can hold the proxy, how many proxies, notification of proxy, withdrawal of proxy etc). Staff can consider the old DNSO proxy voting guidelines as a starting point. (They worked well and were not abused.) Council discusses the options and then instructs staff to draft a resolution to request of Board the preferred option. Philip
I agree this warrants further discussion, and would be good to know the options from Staff's perspective, and particularly what was used by DNSO. Thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bilal S. Beirm Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:35 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proxy voting I support Philip's proposal for draft options paper on conditions for proxy voting. Bilal _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:50 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Proxy voting Background Proxy voting is not allowed under the current by laws. A request to the Board amend the bylaws is possible. Council agreed to await the publication of the next GNSO review report Update There is not a word on proxy voting in the October 15 report from the BGC WG. Proposal Council request staff to write a short options paper on conditions for proxy voting (eg who can hold the proxy, how many proxies, notification of proxy, withdrawal of proxy etc). Staff can consider the old DNSO proxy voting guidelines as a starting point. (They worked well and were not abused.) Council discusses the options and then instructs staff to draft a resolution to request of Board the preferred option. Philip
Avri Doria wrote:
One thing I would like to ask is that the meetings on 27/28 be formal, with attendance, so that as much as possible if we need to make decisions we will have the proper quorum to do so. I don't expect us to make any major decisions, though it has been suggested that we may want to discuss the disposition of our IDN ccTLD report during the Saturday meeting. We may certainly want to take decisions on how to proceed on something. We will, of course wait until the 31 Oct meeting for the major decisions that are currently scheduled for that meeting, and would need a prior motion for any other major decision we would want to take during the meetings on the 27/28th.
Given the expectation that we will not be making major decisions at this weekend session, I think this is reasonable approach Avri. As Philip and you have suggested, it would be best to move the final decision on any major issues until the 31st. It is also reasonable for us to come prepared to work and move the ball forward during the weekend sessions. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
participants (9)
-
Avri Doria -
Bilal S. Beirm -
GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG -
Greg Ruth -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Norbert Klein -
Philip Sheppard -
Rosette, Kristina -
Ross Rader