ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>