Re: [council] Topic for next Agenda was Re: [] Incoming Council members

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I third Tim's timely suggestion.  It has greater pan-constituency  
appeal than malicious conduct, and the pending board letter and  
remaining transition issues would be better addressed in more staid  
settings.  This is after all a dinner conversation, and deconstructing  
and teasing out the many possible implications of the AoC would  
engender lively and engaging debate.  Would also allow us to address  
the accountability issues that some folks expressed interest in vis  
the ACSO discussion.
Best,

Bill


On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

> I second Tim's suggestion, especially as it's unlikely that many of  
> us will have had a chance to discuss this with the Board and staff  
> prior to Seoul, and it's a topic that's pretty critical to most of  
> our constituents.
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network  
> (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
> >>> "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 9/29/2009 1:56 PM >>>
>
> > Board-GNSO-Staff Diner topic
>
> What about the new agreement/arrangement that is rumored to follow the
> expiration of the JPA? Seems we should have more details on that by
> Seoul, and likely a lot of questions.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Topic for next Agenda was Re: [] Incoming Council
> members
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, September 29, 2009 12:28 pm
> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In terms of that agenda, I currently see two dominant issues:
>
> 1. Discussion of the contents of the yet to be approved letter form
> the Board to the GNSO asking for the GNSO to do some work related to
> the DAG and the IRT recommendations.
>
> 2. Any issues that still need to be dealt with in terms of completing
> the transition/restructuring. E.g. the assignment of NCAs to houses
> if that has not been completed yet (completion date is listed as 7
> Oct) or any other issue that is pending.
>
> The agenda will come out this Thursday. If anyone on the council has
> any issues they think also need to be covered, please let me know.
>
> Also in terms of the Board-GNSO-Staff Diner topic - I am thinking
> that the contents of the yet to be seen letter might be just the
> thing. Does this sound reasonable? Any other suggestions?
>
> I am also thinking that this letter should be on the Wednesday Public
> Meeting agenda.
>
> thanks
> a.
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2009, at 12:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > I am anticipating that our agenda may be shorter than usual so I
> > think that it would be good if we have an agenda item at the
> > beginning to welcome the new Councilors and an agenda item at the
> > end allowing them to ask questions if they have any and if time
> > permits. Other than that it is probably best that the new
> > Councilors are there as observers unless there is a discussion topic
> > that specifically involves them.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:43 AM
> >> To: Council GNSO
> >> Subject: Re: [council] Incoming Council members was Re: []
> >> NCA input to House placement
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sorry if i was unclear. i was suggesting that they be there
> >> as observers.
> >> But I was not explicit in the part I wrote for that message,
> >> only in the part I included from a previous message.
> >>
> >> BTW, 'as observers' normally means, in a GNSO context, that
> >> they can participate just not vote or make motions.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >> On 29 Sep 2009, at 11:35, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> >>
> >>> I object to them joining as Councillors.
> >>>
> >>> They should be there as observers only.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On 30/09/2009, at 1:14, "Stéphane Van Gelder"
> >>> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxx
> >>> m> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Seems fine to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Stéphane
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 29/09/09 15:26, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 29 Sep 2009, at 08:32, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I should mention that Andrey has been added to this list (as  
> all
> >>>>>> newly appointed/elected council members will be), and I welcome
> >>>>>> him. Of course the incoming council members are
> >> observers on the
> >>>>>> list until 28 October. In keep with our normal
> >> processes, I invite
> >>>>>> the new council members to participate on the list as
> >> fully as they
> >>>>>> feel ready to with voting and the making of motions
> >> being the only
> >>>>>> exceptions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to suggest that incoming council members also be
> >>>>> invited to join the next Council call on on 8 October.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since this is not part of the normal process, I want to
> >> confirm that
> >>>>> there are no objections.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a.
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************