[council] Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday 
inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a motion 
accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets:

[This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the drafting 
team, so TBD: “It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund 
well over 90% of ICANN's activities.”]

Sorry, missed that.  So what do we do?

Bill


On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among 
> other Non-contracted party councilors.  Nonetheless, I agree that the letter 
> should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later.
>  
>  
> 
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
> Importance: High
> 
> ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and registries 
> account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue.  It is a well established fact.  
> At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not contribute anything 
> directly.
>  
> I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to leave it 
> fine.
>  
> We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed later.
>  
> Chuck
> 
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>  
>> One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it 
>> is important..."
> 
> Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around..
> 
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
>> Nice job Bill.  Two minor, nonmaterial edits:
>> In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to 
>> "literature".
> But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of 
> thought.  Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature 
> mentioned would have led to a different conclusion.
>> The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one 
>> member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, 
>> Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic."  I think it 
>> should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the relevant 
>> AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) 
>> seems especially problematic."
> Ditto the above
> 
>> I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as 
>> soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their 
>> respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the 
>> Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January.
> 
> Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points:
> 
> 
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
>> Apologies for belated comments.  This looks great.  Many thanks to you all 
>> for drafting. 
>>  
>> I have two questions:  1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding 
>> alternates?  Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a 
>> position?    I was not entirely clear on that. 
> 
> Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really argued 
> that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine 
> objections to/issues with the approach.  Moreover, if there were alternates, 
> one could argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need for 
> multiple GNSO participants less important.  So the wording was intended to 
> put the idea on the table as something that might be considered without 
> implying it might be a substitute for multiple slots.  If people think it 
> doesn't work and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we 
> can do that, let me know.
> 
>> 2)  Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct?  I ask only b/c I 
>> would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for 
>> more.
> 
> I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion.  Obviously, 
> there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some 
> people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally 
> represented by both even if they're not active participants, so putting 
> people into mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be 
> viewed as murky from some perspectives...Thoughts?
> 
> Bill
> 

***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************