ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:32:18 +0200
  • Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <000901c7a1ca$7f1cad40$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
  • References: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB54047A174D@balius.mit> <000901c7a1ca$7f1cad40$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Good morning everyone

I plan to release later this week some easy to read documentation and explanations for the Committee to consider. There is a whole lot of work going on that not everyone has been involved in and it would be good to get everyone back in parallel. I am preparing a consolidated text which sets out the draft recommendations and which also captures the work of the three working groups -- IDNs, PRO and RN. This will be in table form and will not include all the explanatory detail which is available in the full reports.

Some of you may be aware that we are having another internal working session on 4 & 5 June in MdR to make more progress on the implementation planning and the Committee call is on 7 June. Shortly after that I will release an updated full draft of the Final Report which will be used at the San Juan meeting to complete the next tranche of work and I expect it would be helpful to have another version of the ICANN Staff Implementation Guidelines available.

The Final Report for the GNSO Council to vote on as a completed piece of work will be available after the San Juan meeting.

A reminder too that the PRO and RN WG will be presenting their final reports on 23 June in San Juan and that we have another GNSO GAC session on 24 June.

Kind regards and, of course, any questions or clarifications, please ask.


Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob

On 29 May 2007, at 10:22, Philip Sheppard wrote:

allow me to respond to your questions about how we handle the gTLD report.

1. We treated this issue as a committee of the whole of Council. This process was explicitly to ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by Council. It escapes all logic that Council would then vote on each recommendation. That process would seem suited to a task
force report. Have we all been wasting our time? I trust not.

2. We also opened the group to observers and received excellent input. That was also a process designed to explicitly ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by the wider

3. Staff have diligently drafted version upon version of the report so that we were all able to track emerging recommendations that achieved broad support. What was the point of all that if we now vote on each recommendation as if it came from nowhere ?

4. The recommendations were not made in glorious isolation. Many are inter-dependent. We will end up with a pigs breakfast if we assume the recommendations can operate in isolation.

We must vote on the report as a whole.

Not all the recommendations please everyone.
It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because individuals wish to re-run
arguments that earlier failed to persuade.
If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our original wish list, so may
the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.

Further work
There are a lot of issues that need further work or at least feedback to Council on their
implementation. Indeed this applies to most recommendations !
It would be useful therefore to explicitly mark in the report where Council expects formal
feedback from staff.
That makes it clear for us, clear for staff.

Link to the sub groups
We also need to make explicit reference to the inclusion and support for these reports where


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>