RE: [council] RE: GNSO Council teleconf. 6 February dial-in details
- To: "'Marilyn Cade'" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] RE: GNSO Council teleconf. 6 February dial-in details
- From: "olof nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:10:24 +0100
- In-reply-to: <BAY104-DAV9C0EFAE809AC799735D7CD3160@phx.gbl>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcYkMtD/F1f/4fZuTFCJ587NAqbgEAAQG6CwAB2acSA=
Marilyn and all,
To my recollection, at the 21 December call the Council resolved to keep the
forthcoming Initial Report as an evolving draft until the end of the
Wellington meeting, in order to enable sufficient interaction etc. That is
my base assumption, although I realize that the necessary interaction with
the GAC and others may call for reconsideration of that timeframe too.
Anyway, it follows that we will have a first "draft" Initial Report soon
that will gradually evolve into a "final" Initial Report later. The Initial
Report should be posted for public comments and in these circumstances it
may be useful to post both the first "draft" and the "final" version as they
become available, in order to boost interaction - rather than just posting
Also, the PDP steps from Initial Report to Final Report constitute a rather
mechanical procedure, with the public comment period as the only interactive
element. This means that we'd better reach a widely agreed Initial Report
before proceeding to Final Report - unless the Council would decide to treat
the Final Report in a similar manner, i.e. as an evolving draft.
I suppose the Council's stance on the above aspects will emerge at our
upcoming conference call.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: den 29 januari 2006 02:42
To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'GNSO Council'
Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Council teleconf. 6 February dial-in details
Thanks, Glen, for the notice of the upcoming Council call with the agenda.
However, I have a question that I would invite Olof to respond to. And,
As I recall, regarding the work plan for new gTLD policy, there was a motion
approved by Council, which agreed that there would be a work plan developed
by staff -- for agreement by council -- of a modified time frame for the
gTLD policy development process. Our discussion included, as I recall,
recognition that the review of Council acknowledged that the present PDP
time process is often not realistic and that council should develop and gain
agreement of the modification for the work plan, rather than simply ignore
We have to take into account in our work plan that we have to address
interactions with the GAC Subcommittee on the GNSO, and I believe that the
Council invited the liaison of that committee to work with us toward a
conference call discussion between now and Wellington, and toward a face to
face interaction in our two day policy development session, if I recall the
Council's last conf. call session and the specific discussion on this topic.
However, I don't think that Olof has yet had a chance to deliver that
modified work plan to council for discussion, and it should be on our agenda
as an item. Item 3 seems to ignore that previous discussion and assignment
by Council, and that is probably an omission.
I propose that the agenda just be expanded to add the discussion of the need
to develop and agree a revised work plan.
Draft Agenda for Council meeting Monday 6 February 2006
Item 1: Approval of minutes
- GNSO Council teleconference minutes 17 January 2006
Item 2: Issues Report on policy issues raised in the proposed com
- consider the issues report (due 1 Feb 2006)
- decide whether to initiate the PDP
(see "Initiation of PDP" in section 3, Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws)
"3. Initiation of PDP
The Council shall initiate the PDP as follows:
a. Issue Raised by the Board. If the Board directs the Council to
initiate the PDP, then the Council shall meet and do so within fifteen
(15) calendar days after receipt of the Issue Report, with no
intermediate vote of the Council.
b. Issue Raised by Other than by the Board. If a policy issue is
presented to the Council for consideration via an Issue Report, then the
Council shall meet within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of
such Report to vote on whether to initiate the PDP. Such meeting may be
convened in any manner deemed appropriate by the Council, including in
person, via conference call or via electronic mail.
c. Vote of the Council. A vote of more than 33% of the Council members
present in favor of initiating the PDP will suffice to initiate the PDP;
unless the Staff Recommendation stated that the issue is not properly
within the scope of the ICANN policy process or the GNSO, in which case
a Supermajority Vote of the Council members present in favor of
initiating the PDP will be required to initiate the PDP."
Item 3: Initial Report on new gTLDs
- consider cosnsitutency statements and public comments (due 31 Jan
- discuss content of Initial Report (due on 15 Feb 2006)
(see section 8 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws)
"c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public
Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the
Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after
initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions
of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report."
Item 4: Next meeting - 21 Feb 2006
- Consider holding a two day physical meeting around 21 Feb 2006 in
Washington, DC to advance the work on policy issues in items 2 and 3
- note the Final Report on new gTLDs is due on 15 March 2006
(see section 9 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws)
"9. Public Comments to the Task
c. The Staff Manager shall prepare the Final Report and submit it to the
Council chair within ten (10) calendar days after the end of the public
Item 5: Statements of Interest
Item 6: Any other business