RE: [council] Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

Everybody know this in the community. Should it really be included? It?s not
a new fact of live?

 

--andrei

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:06 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Cc: "Géry de Saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Glen"; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: [council] Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]

 

Hi

 

Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday
inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a
motion accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets:

 

[This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the drafting
team, so TBD: ?It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that
fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities.?]

 

Sorry, missed that.  So what do we do?

 

Bill

 

 

On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:





I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among
other Non-contracted party councilors.  Nonetheless, I agree that the letter
should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later.

 

 

 


  _____  


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM
To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
Importance: High

ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and registries
account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue.  It is a well established fact.
At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not contribute anything
directly.

 

I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to leave it
fine.

 

We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed later.

 

Chuck






  _____  


From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter

Hi 

 

On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





 

One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it
is important..."

 

Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around..

 

On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:





Nice job Bill.  Two minor, nonmaterial edits:

1.      In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to
"literature".

But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of
thought.  Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature
mentioned would have led to a different conclusion.



2.      The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting
just one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of
Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic."  I
think it should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the
relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency
team) seems especially problematic."

Ditto the above





I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as
soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their
respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the
Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January.

 

Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points:

 

 

On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:





Apologies for belated comments.  This looks great.  Many thanks to you all
for drafting.  

 

I have two questions:  1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding
alternates?  Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a
position?    I was not entirely clear on that. 

 

Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really
argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine
objections to/issues with the approach.  Moreover, if there were alternates,
one could argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need
for multiple GNSO participants less important.  So the wording was intended
to put the idea on the table as something that might be considered without
implying it might be a substitute for multiple slots.  If people think it
doesn't work and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we
can do that, let me know.





2)  Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct?  I ask only b/c I
would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for
more.

 

I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion.  Obviously,
there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some
people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally
represented by both even if they're not active participants, so putting
people into mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be
viewed as murky from some perspectives...Thoughts?

 

Bill

 

 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************