Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
Hello All, As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy development process. The Committee is of the whole Council, but where a Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from their constituency to participate. The constituency/Council member should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to the meeting. I am hoping that Olof will be able to at least have a draft Initial Report that summarises the constituency input, the papers that have been submitted in response to our call for papers, and the public comments submitted via the ICANN website. The aim of the meeting will be to consider this report and identify areas of consensus. We are essentially operating under the provisions of section 8(b) and 8(c), of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws. One thing we did not cover in the Council call, was whether to hold an open public forum. Given that there were a few Council members that were against this idea, and also given the additional logistics and costs of arranging such a forum, I suggest instead that we follow up on our call for papers on 3 January 2006: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm . In that call for papers we stated: "Received papers will be considered for oral presentations to the GNSO Council during February 2006, via scheduled conference calls with the GNSO Council." We could simply set up a conference bridge to allow selected authors of papers to call-in, and where cost is an issue we can call-out to appropriate people. Please let me know if you agree with this approach, and also please identify any particular papers where you think it would be beneficial for the author to present a summary of the paper orally and respond to questions. I will also ask Olof to review the received papers with this in mind. Glen can then contact the authors and see who may be available (we may have to schedule time appropriate to the time zones of the authors). I think it is important to ensure future substantial contributions to the policy development process, that the Committee gives significant attention to considering these submissions - and doesn't simply rely on reading a staff summary. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, I agree with this approach - a conference bridge instead of a public forum, per se. Q. Would we set up the bridge during the Washington DC meeting, or at a time prior to that, as it is my understanding that the meeting is to be a working session? Q. You wrote "and also please identify any particular papers where you think it would be beneficial for the author to present a summary of the paper orally and respond to questions. I will also ask Olof to review the received papers with this in mind. " Kindly indicate where the papers, as submitted by the authors, have been collected and may be viewed. Thanks, Maureen ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Tonkin To: council@gnso.icann.org Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 5:00 AM Subject: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb Hello All, As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy development process. The Committee is of the whole Council, but where a Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from their constituency to participate. The constituency/Council member should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to the meeting. I am hoping that Olof will be able to at least have a draft Initial Report that summarises the constituency input, the papers that have been submitted in response to our call for papers, and the public comments submitted via the ICANN website. The aim of the meeting will be to consider this report and identify areas of consensus. We are essentially operating under the provisions of section 8(b) and 8(c), of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws. One thing we did not cover in the Council call, was whether to hold an open public forum. Given that there were a few Council members that were against this idea, and also given the additional logistics and costs of arranging such a forum, I suggest instead that we follow up on our call for papers on 3 January 2006: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm . In that call for papers we stated: "Received papers will be considered for oral presentations to the GNSO Council during February 2006, via scheduled conference calls with the GNSO Council." We could simply set up a conference bridge to allow selected authors of papers to call-in, and where cost is an issue we can call-out to appropriate people. Please let me know if you agree with this approach, and also please identify any particular papers where you think it would be beneficial for the author to present a summary of the paper orally and respond to questions. I will also ask Olof to review the received papers with this in mind. Glen can then contact the authors and see who may be available (we may have to schedule time appropriate to the time zones of the authors). I think it is important to ensure future substantial contributions to the policy development process, that the Committee gives significant attention to considering these submissions - and doesn't simply rely on reading a staff summary. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello, --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy development process. The Committee is of the whole Council, but where a Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from their constituency to participate. The constituency/Council member should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to the meeting.
I have also understood that each constituency could send up to 3 delegates to the meeting - is that correct? is this also a feature of the "Committee of the whole Council", or was it part of the earlier D.C meeting package :) or formula? Mawaki
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Dear Bruce, I respectfully request that some portion of the Washington meeting be focused on discussing the ToR and PDP for the policy issues in registry contracts, especially because there is a need to respond to existing gTLD contracts that are under discussion or posted for public comment. I'd ask that we set aside a minimum of 2 hours for this discussion and that we give special attention to the timing of that discussion so that the New Zealand BC representative and any other of time zone challenged councilors who are committed to dial in for a segment or two of the meeting, are not terribly disadvantaged. I leave time management/translations to our capable Secretariat. Here is my concern: I note that when I made the motion FOR the meeting, I specifically asked that we address this set of issues. Subsequently, the Chair posted a suggestion that we address two topics in the meeting. I fully supported that. However, somehow the meeting has morphed into only addressing the new gTLD policy development PDP, and I strongly prefer to have a set amount of the time focused on the second and time sensitive PDP just agreed. I would expect we will be approving the relevant ToR on the Council call on 2/16, so a 2 hour discussion on methods, how to best proceed, etc. seems critical to include in the working group/session in Washington. And, given the intervening days between Monday and 2/24 or 2/25, we can certainly expect each of the constituencies to consult within themselves on the options. To accommodate that many councilors are not going to be in person, we could identify/explore options for organizing the work, and the various approaches of how to best progress the work, any needed information or resources, etc. and post them for discussion on the Council list. Time lines for completing the work should also be discussed. I have a concrete proposal for how to manage the work and I'd propose that others give thought as well to options: I propose that the second PDP be worked as a modified TF. I had previously supported the Council working as a Committee of the Whole of Council. However, I've spoken with several councilors, and I suggest that following adaptation: Create a Council working group all councilors, but, allow each Constituency to substitute Constituency members for Councilors, so long as there is a minimum of one councilor from each constituency, for a total of three per constituency. Other members would be the liaisons from the ACs, and the NomComm members. Rationale: The two PDPs are quite interlinked, and it is essential for the full understanding of the Council of the discussions and examinations of the policy issues on PDP on contractual issues in existing registry contracts [or whatever we call it] and of the policy issues and explorations being undertaken in new GTLD policy PDP. I understand that some constituencies may want to appoint constituency members, but that may not the case for all constituencies... and this will allow flexibility. Also, should some constituencies want to have three reps, and some only two, or even one, that can be balanced by simply giving all constituencies the same number of votes on the Council Working Group/TF. As we all recall, votes are singular, and not "weighted" in the PDP working process. Marilyn Cade BC Councilor -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:43 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb Hello, --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in
Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy
development process. The Committee is of the whole Council, but
where a
Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from
their constituency to participate. The constituency/Council
member
should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to
the
meeting.
I have also understood that each constituency could send up to 3 delegates to the meeting - is that correct? is this also a feature of the "Committee of the whole Council", or was it part of the earlier D.C meeting package :) or formula? Mawaki
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Based on the e-mail posting to the Council list the last two weeks, I have the impression that a majority of the Council will not be attending the Washington meetings now scheduled for next week. Should we substitute two long conference calls these days instead of an in-person meeting? Bret
participants (5)
-
Bret Fausett -
Bruce Tonkin -
Marilyn Cade -
Maureen Cubberley -
Mawaki Chango