<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups
Thanks Tim.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:16 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
>
> 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/.
> >
> >
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|