RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council

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

Mike,

I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so
I would have a concern in that regard.

On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business
regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the
work they request us to do.  I think it would be premature and
ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in
place.  There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week
to discuss the issues.  Before we develop a process, it would be helpful
to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction
with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good
start.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
> 
> 
> Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the 
> Council, obviously.
> So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul 
> to kick this off?
> 
> I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at 
> the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our 
> weekend sessions but at no other times.  It makes the weekend 
> sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more 
> contentious than warranted.  It allows a few well-funded 
> members of the community to have far undue influence over 
> Council deliberations and policy development.  With specific 
> respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of 
> all the arguments we have heard for months and over several 
> meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and 
> progress towards policy development.
> 
> Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be 
> allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation 
> periods as during our Wednesday session.  If councilors wish 
> to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought 
> to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to 
> speak than there are Councilors.
> 
> Do others agree or disagree with this?
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
> 
> 
> We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday.  The one 
> clear position that was made is that the process should 
> follow the practice we have been following in recent months 
> and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> > Was just asked during another meeting  whether there was 
> any idea of 
> > what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order 
> to meet the 
> > Board deadline on this.
> > 
> > I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition 
> details to 
> > have discussed this at all on the list.
> > 
> > I would like to invite the council to begin considering how 
> you want 
> > to handle this.  Hopefully discussions have already begun 
> in the SGs.
> > 
> > One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to 
> start dealing 
> > with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks 
> to get it 
> > done.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > 
> 
>