<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hi,
I understand the offer was in good faith, didn't mean to suggest
otherwise. Just don't see what's gained by positioning an extra-
council entity that was the focus of disputes as a gatekeeper on who
might lend expertise if the DT wants to consult. Sometimes starting
fresh and unburdened by legacy processes is an easier path toward
consensus. And IRT people will be at the table regardless.
BTW if we're building this from constituencies, for the drafting team
NCUC would like Kathy Kleinman and Konstantinos Komaitis added to the
list.
Thanks,
Bill
On Oct 21, 2009, at 11:32 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
The sole purpose of the suggested IRT group is to answer questions,
not to provide advice. If no questions are asked of it, it will not
do anything. To the extent the use of "advisory" created any
misunderstanding, perhaps the correct adjective should have been
"resource."
It is certainly the Council's prerogative to reject the offer, which
was made in good faith and for the sole purpose of facilitating the
Council in avoiding the same errors in its report that were made in
both the Board letter and the staff recommendations.
-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:26 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Hello,
Bruce said he 'could be available to meet with any subgroup of the
GNSO,' and I believe Avri suggested we get 2-3 names per
constituency to get the process started. NCUC would support that
process, it's the
right thing to do this within normal, agreed GNSO procedures.
However, we would not support privileging the defunct IRT and having
it select members of an advisory group to the DT. We, like most
everyone in ALAC I saw comment, were not happy with the way the IRT
process was handled and I suggest we do not unnecessarily revisit
prior sources of strong disagreement, which will just cloud things.
There are a lot of people with expertise who were not allowed to
participate in the IRT and probably wouldn't be selected by the IRT
but who could serve if a separate advisory group if the DT decides
one is really needed (not obvious ex ante). And anyway, if
constituencies opt to put forward names that served on the IRT, that
will bring the relevant institutional memory to the table. So we
don't need to elevate the IRT per se to some special position of
authority in this matter.
Best,
Bill
On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the
DT.
Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the
Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different
representative from that point forward.
The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of
the IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the
IPC suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a
small group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group
to the DT and whatever "entity" takes the work forward. In
particular, it would be most productive for that group to include at
least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse
Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal. (The IRT work was
done through several work teams. Those former IRT members who worked
on the specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any
misunderstandings, to explain the reasoning behind certain
recommendations, and the like). Being able to call on former IRT
members for such clarification and explanation will be highly
conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that
have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as
we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed
to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those
meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter
on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think
the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press
of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting
we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the
active
Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps
even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come
up
with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/ accept at
the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I
ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to
name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some
member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a
mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think
it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on
the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them
among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the
SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and
recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at
least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of
course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I
suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this
opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting
(https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009
), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday
meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?
agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|