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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We'll discuss, but I was okay with it as written until this thread
got started. Personally, I think recommendation 6 covers it as it
says (especially c and d):

6. Prior to the availability of any tool kit services, ICANN Staff
should develop and
   inform GNSO organizations of the following:
       a. What services are available
       b. General specifications of each service
       c. Any requirements for using the service (initial and ongoing)
       d. Procedures for requesting each service
       e. Procedures for cancelling or modifying a service
       f. Process for evaluating services
       g. Process for adding or deleting services.
 
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 1:05 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO
Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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/.
> 
>