RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> All that is being recommended here is, if a SG or constituency 
> decides to hold a F2F meeting and would like Staff assistance 
> for doing that, then they could opt to use that service if they 
> like.

Is that really what is meant there? That's not how I took it. If
in fact that is the intent, then I agree with Stephane that the
RrSG is very unlikely to support it or to vote for the motion.

The decision on how ICANN's budget is set should not be at the sole
discretion of any SG or constituency. How does ICANN budget for that?
I would think at the very least, the SG or constituency would first
petition the GNSO Council in some manner. The Council would work with
Staff to make a decision based on priorities, budget, etc.

If instead, what was meant is that such funding is possibly available
with Council/Staff approval, that makes sense.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services
Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, December 03, 2009 8:37 am
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO
Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Stephane,
 
I find this very surprising and extremely disappointing.  The RrSG has
representation on the CSG WT and there was no concern expressed from the
RrSG.  The CSG WT sought comments from SGs months ago and there was no
concern from the RrSG.  The RrSG has representation on the OSC and no
concern was expressed from the RrSG.  The recommendations were sent to
the full Council list on 5 Nov for discussion and comment and the topic
was raised for discussion on the 23 Nov Council meeting; still no RrSG
comment.  Now a motion is made after many months of comment
solicitation, and you say the RrSG may not support the motion.  Am I
missing something here?
 
More specifically to the point of the recommendations, you seem to be
talking about ICANN funding for F2F meetings.  The Toolkit of Services
recommendations say nothing about that. The recommendations simply say
that one of the services that could be made available for SGs and
constituencies is support for arranging face-to-face meetings for SGs
and constituencies.  They make no reference to doing that for WTs, WGs,
or other GNSO organizations besides constituencies and SGs; in fact, a
more general approach that left it open to other organizations was
rejected.  All that is being recommended here is, if a SG or
constituency decides to hold a F2F meeting and would like Staff
assistance for doing that, then they could opt to use that service if
they like.
 
Chuck
 
 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:02 AM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services
Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups



As written, I would think that the RrSG would find it difficult to
support TK recommendations considering that the second one is
requesting: 

Support for organizing face-to-face meetings (e.g. date/time, location,
equipment, telephone bridge and, in certain venues, arranging
accommodations)


I know the email I sent to the Council list a few days ago raising the
issue of a tendency towards more and more requests for F2F meetings for
WTs and DTs has not generated much discussion. I do hope this is simply
because people have other things on their plate and not that the issue
is of no interest to anyone.


Perhaps this motion, and the contents of the TK recommendations, will
generate some discussion on the matter...


Thanks,


Stéphane




Le 3 déc. 2009 à 09:52, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a
écrit :

Chuck,
 
I'd like to second this motion but have one question regarding to the
"resolved": does "sharing the recommendations with the board.." mean
that there is no further need for board approval? In this case the
council might direct staff to execute the recommendations.
 
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


 

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 06:33
An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services
Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups



I am making this motion for action in our 17 Dec 09 Council meeting.
 
Glen - Please post this per normal practice.  Thanks.
 
Chuck
 
Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups

Motion by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: 

Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC
Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in
consultation with the GNSO Council, a “tool kit” of basic services
that would be made available to all constituencies.  (See Report of the
Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO
Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf,
p. 46.);

Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement
Recommendations on 26 June 2008
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182);

Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering
Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational
changes contained in the BGC Report;

Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO
Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the
work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report
recommendations; 

Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team
developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them
to the OSC for review;

Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations;  

Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and
Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective
groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council
action in our December meeting;

RESOLVED, the Council accepts the recommendations
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05nov09-en.pdf)
and directs Staff to share the recommendations with the Board and post
the document on the GNSO web page at http://gnso.icann.org/.