Re: [council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006
Ken - your point is well taken, my comments aren't intended to detract from this. I'd like to underscore the need for continued outreach on behalf of each of the constituencies. Lately we've heard a fair number of concerns regarding participatory burdens. In my opinion, we are faced with a shortage of manpower - a shortage that can only be solved by increasing the depth and breadth of the membership of the constituency structure. If this issue isn't addressed, the GNSO will fail in meeting its policy objectives. Further, I'd also like to clarify my understanding of the term "volunteer" as it relates to the vast majority of the members of the GNSO. We all represent various interests in the ICANN tent. To the extent that we represent our individual, personal interests, then the use of the term "volunteer" is indeed appropriate. However, for the rest of us, our participation is on behalf of various commercial and non-commercial interests. We advocate for their interests, and while our participation is optional, it is usually not undertaken on a true volunteer basis. This is more of a case of commercial and non-commercial benevolence - and appropriate at that. The only instance in which this benevolence becomes volunteerism is at the point that the advocates are moved into positions within the GNSO that their capability to advocate their own interests takes a back-seat to their position - the chairs of the Council and tasks forces, council members, et al. are all required to represent the interests of aspects or all of the community and not of their sponsor. This is a small point in the grand scheme of things, but I think its important that we are very clear, at least amongst ourselves, where our interests lie, what motivates us each, and above all else, whom is ultimately contributing to paying the bills for the activities we undertake. Have a great holiday season everyone. -ross Ken Stubbs wrote: if this be the case then we need to be judicious in selecting the day for the "committee of the whole" for new GTLD's conference calls. (Remembering thatthis council is composed of "volunteers" with icann staff support.)this could become a potential onerous burden on our members if we are not careful here. if that be the case, then we should consider opening up the GTLD TF to non-council members from the various constituencies.. i would become very concerned if we cannot populate the new TF calls with an adequate representation from all constituencies.Marilyn Cade wrote:Dear Glen and fellow Councilors Thanks for the proposed calendar. I can make those dates, with the understanding that if the WHOIS TFcontinues on Tuesdays, that makes a heavy ICANN "day" on that one week each month. That is manageable, since the WHOIS TF isn't meeting every week, andundoubtedly, we could coordinate with that TF as needed to cancel that week's meeting. Thus, this seems fine with my calendar. Marilyn -----Original Message-----From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] OnBehalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:39 AM To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006 [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members,These are proposed dates for the GNSO Council teleconferences in January, February and March:Tuesday 17 January 2006 19:00 UTC Tuesday 21 February 2006 19:00 UTC Tuesday 14 March 2006 19:00 UTC PDP working calls will be placed inbetween as required. Please let me have your comments. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen
|