[council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group
- To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:02:18 +1100
- Cc: <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AccHkOnyNBjYXuMUSPWrap/j71TO4g==
- Thread-topic: Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group
I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN
As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption that
the working group had a very short life.
Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the working
group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair to
another person. There have been two candidates that have been nominated
by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele. I have thus
initiated an email election process based on the existing membership of
the working group to put a new chair in place.
There are however outstanding issues:
- clearly defining the charter of the working group
- clarifying the rules for membership
I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community that
are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members of the
general assembly mailing list. So far I have been recommending that
these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet the
requirement of a "GNSO volunteer" I have since noticed that the
current definition of a working group in:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up
membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as
subscribers to the ga@xxxxxxxx, announce@xxxxxxxx or the GA voting
register". I am not sure if this is the Council's intent.
The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern is
that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations
regarding the purpose of this working group. We also need to clearly
establish the working group in the context of the President's Advisory
Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee.
It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing a
chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call for
One alternative is that we continue with the current election and with
the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with the
group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for
approval. I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my
interest in handing over responsibility to someone else. We could
limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if the
working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up election.
Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply suggest
they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the work
I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list, and
discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16 Nov.