ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group


Good point Wolf. My support for this kind of effort should not be
interpreted to mean that staff resources should be used.  If we go down that
path, I think we will expand the resources problems we already have.
 
Chuck


  _____  

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:51 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group


I understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI solution
provided as soon as possible although the board has not yet decided upon,
and I welcome this initiative. On the other hand the approach of this group
formation looks a bit strange to me. From the membership structure they
looks lik a GNSO WG (I wonder whether it has been discussed within the
constituencies/SGs). They also request ICANN staff ressources which are
needed for other activities already in the pipe. Has this already been
accepted by ICANN? Ressources are rare. 
Is this the way to organize the WG-model based work in future? I don't think
so.
 
I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as the board on how to
deal with policy development issues. If we start it this way we may be
confronted with more particular interest groups in future trying to bypass
the GNSO.
 
Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear whether and to
what extent the EoI is of interest for our work.
 
Comments welcome.

Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37
An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group





I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere
efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process.  I
think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and
collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing
input to ICANN processes.
 
I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because
the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort.  In that letter
they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be
presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from
the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called
for in the Board resolution."  Based on the proposed membership of the
group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are
strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say
'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded
parties.  That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that
and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
 
Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not
made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the
policy management body for the GNSO.  As far as I am aware, they have not
asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group.  I am not
suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at
some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to
come back to the GNSO.  Without being critical in any way, they may not want
this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the
GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
 
Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't
seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did
invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would
the role of that observer be?  We would need to understand that before
making any decisions.
 
Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent
Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he
is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative
from the Council.
 
Other thoughts are welcome.
 
Chuck


  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group





Hello all.

Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest"
group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from
the Seoul meeting.

Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no
claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity
and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group.

If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I
would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to
play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have
their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Début du message réexpédié :


De : Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC

À : Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>

Cc : Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexander Schwertner
<as@xxxxxxx>, bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx, Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek
<lenz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Wood <nick.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx,
Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Ruiz Tim
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group


Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on
October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your
willingness to work with us going forward.

Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in
order.   I attach them here:

1. Our charter
2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting

If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first
teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16.

We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but
we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a
complicated one.   We foresee having  two phone calls over the next 10 days
after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their
polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board
resolution).

In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out
to others to join our group.   Our prospective panel is listed in both of
the attached documents.   We think it's representative of a good
cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse,
and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus.
We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.

One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first
call, scheduled for Monday.

I am of course available for questions, as is Liz.

Thanks for your participation,

Antony





Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>