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

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

Marilyn

 

That's helpful and gives us some more options - thanks.

 

Early sight of the schedule is also required though, to make this work.

 

Tony

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 12 February 2006 23:25
To: Holmes,AR,Tony,CXM R; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24
Feb and Saturday 25 Feb

 

As I understand the plans, all constituencies can substitute members for
elected councilors. 

 

It would be good to have any of the councilors on the phone/conference
to the extent possible - even if not for the full time slot [the BC
certainly doesn't expect Grant and Philip to be on the call for both
full days if they are not here in person].I understand that Glen is
arranging for dial out/or dial in, recognizing the expense to a
councilor to dial in for several hours. 

 

Since I'm organizing logistics with Glen for the meeting, I wanted to
just note that we should have a very well developed agenda, and keep to
it, so that councilors - remote - can pick and choose their times on the
call. 

 

For instance, for presentations from various parties, councilors might
choose to read the transcript, rather than stay online for 3 hours. But
choose to be online while there is a discussion of policy options. 

 

Etc. 

 

 

Marilyn

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:51 PM
To: tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24
Feb and Saturday 25 Feb

 

Bruce/Marilyn

 

Seeing Marilyn's note below I thought it appropriate to advise you that
the timeframe set for the Washington meeting is proving particularly
difficult for the ISPCP. Whilst we are actively pursuing options that
will hopefully result in ISPCP participation, it is quite likely that
none of the ISPCP Council members will be able to travel to Washington.

 

Within the ISPCP there are no perceived problems in allowing formally
agreed representatives to speak for the Constituency, so I hope that
will be taken into consideration as rules are defined for that meeting.

 

Regards

 

Tony

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: 10 February 2006 22:49
To: 'Council GNSO'
Cc: 'bruce tonkin'
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24
Feb and Saturday 25 Feb

 

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

> 

> 

> 

>