RE: [council] GA

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I certainly respect all the time people are putting in on GNSO work; I
also have been spending a lot of time. But at the same time, let's not
make this more work than it is.  As long as we are assured that minimal
staff time will be required, it seems to me that it is not a very
complex task to let the participants of the GA list manage their own
list.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:18 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] GA
> 
> I agree with a slight deferral.  While its an important task 
> and I certainly welcome more public input into the GNSO 
> process, we need to realistic about our current workload. 
> 
> Let's move a few items off our plate before we add new items to it.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
> >The combination of new gTLDs + Whois + domain tasting has 
> exhausted my 
> >current Councilor bandwidth.  I propose that we defer action 
> until at 
> >least after September 6.
> >
> >Kristina Rosette
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> >[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:05 AM
> >To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council
> >Subject: RE: [council] GA
> >
> >What does it mean that an organization exists?  Is organizational 
> >existence defined by the ICANN Bylaws?  In other words, if an 
> >organization is not defined in the Bylaws, it does not exist?  If so 
> >and if we only responded to requests from Bylaws defined 
> organizations, 
> >then we would not be able to respond to most organizations and the 
> >bottom-up policy development process would not work.
> >
> >According to the Bylaws, the primary responsibility of the 
> Council is 
> >to manage the policy development process.  Providing forums 
> for input 
> >into that process seems to me to be a very legitimate means of 
> >fulfilling that responsibility.  And if we restrict those forums to 
> >existing constituencies, then we are limiting input, unless 
> of course 
> >we think the constituency structure is perfect.
> >
> >Chuck Gomes
> > 
> >"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
> >which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged, 
> >confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any 
> >unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly 
> prohibited. 
> >If you have received this message in error, please notify sender 
> >immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> > 
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> >>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:15 AM
> >>To: 'GNSO Council'
> >>Subject: [council] GA
> >>
> >>
> >>It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist.
> >>The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
> >>
> >>The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who 
> wants to be
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> >>on it.
> >>I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list 
> chairman 
> >>and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of 
> an election.
> >>In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list 
> >>subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
> >>
> >>This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform.
> >>Lets focus on our policy priorities.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>