RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Bruce,

 

I respectfully request that some portion of the Washington meeting be
focused on discussing the ToR and PDP for the policy issues in registry
contracts, especially because there is a need to respond to existing gTLD
contracts that are under discussion or posted for public comment. 

 

I'd ask that we set aside a minimum of 2 hours for this discussion and that
we give special attention to the timing of that discussion so that the New
Zealand BC representative and any other of time zone challenged councilors
who are committed to dial in for a segment or two of the meeting, are not
terribly disadvantaged. 

 

I leave time management/translations to our capable Secretariat. 

 

Here is my concern: 

 

I note that when I made the motion FOR the meeting, I specifically asked
that we address this set of issues. Subsequently, the Chair posted a
suggestion that we address two topics in the meeting. I fully supported
that. However, somehow the meeting has morphed into only addressing the new
gTLD policy development  PDP, and I strongly prefer to have a set amount of
the time focused on the second and time sensitive PDP just agreed.

 

I would expect we will be approving the relevant ToR on the Council call on
2/16, so a 2 hour discussion on methods, how to best proceed, etc. seems
critical to include in the working group/session in Washington.  And, given
the intervening days between Monday and 2/24 or 2/25, we can certainly
expect each of the constituencies to consult within themselves on the
options.

To accommodate that many councilors are not going to be in person, we could
identify/explore options for organizing the work, and the various approaches
of how to best progress the work, any needed information or resources, etc.
and post them for discussion on the Council list. Time lines for completing
the work should also be discussed. 

 

I have a concrete proposal for how to manage the work and I'd propose that
others give thought as well to options:  I propose that the second PDP be
worked as a modified TF. I had previously supported the Council working as a
Committee of the Whole of Council. However, I've spoken with several
councilors, and I suggest that following adaptation: 

 

Create a Council working group all councilors, but, allow each Constituency
to substitute Constituency members for Councilors, so long as there is a
minimum of one councilor from each constituency, for a total of three per
constituency. Other members would be the liaisons from the ACs, and the
NomComm members.  

 

Rationale: The two PDPs are quite interlinked, and it is essential for the
full understanding of the Council of the discussions and examinations of the
policy issues on PDP on contractual issues in existing registry contracts
[or whatever we call it] and of the policy issues and explorations being
undertaken in new GTLD policy PDP. 

 

I understand that some constituencies may want to appoint constituency
members, but that may not the case for all constituencies... and this will
allow flexibility. 

 

Also, should some constituencies want to have three reps, and some only two,
or even one, that can be balanced by simply giving all constituencies the
same number of votes on the Council Working Group/TF. As we all recall,
votes are singular, and not "weighted" in the PDP working process. 

 

Marilyn Cade

BC Councilor

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:43 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb
and Saturday 25 Feb

 

Hello,

 

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

> Hello All,

> 

> As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in

> Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy

> development process.  The Committee is of the whole Council, but

> where a

> Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from

> their constituency to participate.   The constituency/Council

> member

> should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to

> the

> meeting.

> 

 

I have also understood that each constituency could send up to 3

delegates to the meeting - is that correct? is this also a feature of

the "Committee of the whole Council", or was it part of the earlier

D.C meeting package :) or formula?

 

Mawaki 

 

> 

> 

> Regards,

> Bruce Tonkin

> 

> 

> 

>