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

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

You guys are obviously reading more into this than was intended.  Please 
suggest an amendment that makes you feel comfortable.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:00 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of 
> Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and 
> Stakeholder Groups
> 
> > 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-improvem
> ents-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#_Toc7
> 6113182);
> 
> 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-recommendation
> s-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/.
> 
>