RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
- To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxx>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:26:41 -0400
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcNH0DnhxOdZGWxlSq+Zs+bFmfVDHAACX5yQ
- Thread-topic: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?
Thanks for putting this issue back before Council. I personally support the need
to work on this, and on behalf of my other BC members, who due to time zones,
may not have
seen this, this remains a high priority to the BC membership.
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:11 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin
Subject: Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference
scheduled for 17 July 2003?
Bruce & fellow council members...
I am in support of Bruce's suggestions but like to remind the council that
one item that should be vetted very soon is a follow-up on the names council
recommendation to the board to continue to keep the size of the council at 3
members per constituency..
given the normal ICANN lead times, this issue needs to be dealt with soon
enough so that the board has adequate time
to deal with this issue.
in my personal opinion, the council has, over the last 6 months , worked
much more efficiently and, given the current geo-political environment we
are operating in, as well as some of the very sensitive issues before us
(such as privacy), it is increasing important that the council maintain
continued broad global inclusiveness & balance.
at the time that the new by-laws were being formulated we were given
commitments that our concerns about this issue would be given serious
re-consideration by the board .
given that all the constituencies must hold elections this fall for council
member vacancies, i personally feel that this issue needs to be dealt with
I certainly am not proposing that this be dealt with in a July meeting but
it definitely needs to be on the august agenda and i would hope that between
now & the august meeting we could come up with a proposal & formal council
action to be reaffirmed by vote in the august meeting..
i would appreciate additional input on this topic from other council members
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:11 AM
Subject: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for
17 July 2003?
> Hello All,
> We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003.
> (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html).
> I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have:
> - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO
> recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey
> on this yet)
> - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN
> staff yet)
> - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN
> management of GNSO website and secretariat)
> - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since
> We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage
> (7 days prior to the meeting).
> I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and
> plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003.
> In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering
> group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey
> regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report
> (which is well overdue). I also want to ensure that the outcome of the
> deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to
> ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting.
> Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting
> on 17 July 2003.
> Bruce Tonkin