RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT.  
Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in 
Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point 
forward.

The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's 
recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that 
the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members 
to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes 
the work forward.  In particular, it would be most productive for that group to 
include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse 
Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal.  (The IRT work was done 
through several work teams.  Those former IRT members who worked on the 
specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, 
to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being 
able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will 
be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.  



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council



On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> If we do decide to go for a DT,

I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have 
proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.

I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a 
published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who 
are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.

This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on 
Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the 
suggestion about forming a DT a good idea.  Because of the press of time, we 
cannot wait for a meeting to do this.  So I am suggesting we start now.

I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison 
groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time 
for a teleconference) and  on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the 
work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the 
Thursday meeting.

Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG 
to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative 
each for the STI-DT  and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling 
at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team 
immediately.  I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members 
who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them 
among the 2-3 volunteers.  I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not 
necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the 
people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in 
other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).

We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we 
schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.

The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting 
(https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009
), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting 
(https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? 
agenda_29_oct_2009).

a.