Re: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Julie.

I'll put together an informal mailing list of the people that have said they 
were willing to work on this and get the process started.

So far I have Bill, Mary, Wolf... Please let me know if I have left someone off.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 nov. 2010 à 16:06, Julie Hedlund a écrit :

> Chuck, Bill, and Stephane,
> 
> This is on the agenda for the OSC for its meeting on Sunday the 5th in
> Cartagena.  Might I suggest that you suggest some specific changes for the
> OSC to consider?  I have attached the document in redline and clean versions
> if this might be of interest to you.  You could modify the text if you
> wished, or suggest changes or raise issues in an email.   If the OSC had
> these suggestions prior to Cartagena it would help to prepare them for the
> discussion and to determine how to proceed.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> 
> On 11/19/10 8:43 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the GCOT or
>> not.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM
>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
>>> Cc: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference,
>>> Thursday 28 October 2010
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Stéphane
>>> 
>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
>>>> 
>>>> Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there
>>> was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all seem
>>> to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
>>> 
>>> Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list prior
>>> and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI.  Must be my
>>> English.
>>>> 
>>>> That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
>>> the intent was to push the revisions further and change other aspects
>>> of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
>>>> 
>>>> If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you or
>>> others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that can
>>> achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the motion
>>> endorses.
>>>> 
>>>> We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to see
>>> if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
>>> 
>>> Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make
>>> it that way.  Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
>>> 
>>> BD
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Stéphane
>>>> 
>>>> Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some
>>>>>> observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy
>>>>>> development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the
>>> 3
>>>>>> motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I
>>> fear
>>>>>> volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why would that be the result?  As we discussed in the chat space
>>> during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said
>>> fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut
>>> down, and the VI motion should pass next time.  I guess I am fearless
>>> in this regard.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And it is an
>>>>>> indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation
>>> on SG
>>>>>> level have to be improved, too.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Undoubtedly these can always be better
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council
>>> role"
>>>>>> meeting in Cartagena.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the
>>> discussion
>>>>>> weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time
>>> enough
>>>>> 
>>>>>> to discuss their questionmarks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had
>>> limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised
>>> GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council
>>> list expressing concern about it.  That said, it wasn't just one SG
>>> that voted against it.  It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted
>>> against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In this case normally a request for
>>>>>> delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the
>>>>>> motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a
>>> signal
>>>>>> to the community very different from just rejecting the motion.
>>> Maybe
>>>>>> that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we
>>> want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone
>>> in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs.
>>> But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed
>>> too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than sequentially.
>>> (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well).  And there's
>>> reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would have
>>> provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't
>>> then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway.  Wouldn't
>>> delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more
>>> confusing signal?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see
>>> the
>>>>>> Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment.
>>>>>> Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with -
>>> here I
>>>>>> join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task
>>> for a
>>>>>> separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to
>>> achieve balance than to create a separate group?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The JAS WG
>>>>>> should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given
>>> the
>>>>>> opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to
>>> be
>>>>>> defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with
>>>>>> outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to
>>> other
>>>>>> matters of urgency.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks much,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>> Senior Associate
>>>>> Centre for International Governance
>>>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>>> Development Studies
>>>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>>>> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> Senior Associate
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>> Development Studies
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> <GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 
> 2010 redline.doc><GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions 
> without DOI 15 Oct 2010 clean.doc>