ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


I see no reason why we would not include the sentence, minus the brackets, to 
help support the arguments in that paragraph around needing additional 
representation. We could add a footnote to show that this statement is 
supported by accounts shown in the FY10 Operating Plan & Budget [page 15]. 
 
So, option 3 for me.
 
Thanks.
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 29 January 2010 13:58
To: William Drake; GNSO Council List
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; _Glen=22?=
Subject: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
 
First of all, let's not submit the comments until we resolve this in some way.
 
 I think there are three things we can do that I talk about below:
1.      Submit the comments as is with the statement and the brackets
2.      Remove the sentence from the comments
3.      Leave the sentence but remove the brackets.
In our meeting yesterday, we approved the letter with the statement in 
brackets, so we probably do not need any additional action to do option 1; if 
we do this we can literally leave it as is, which is what we approved, or add a 
footnote to explain the brackets, maybe something like this: "There was not 
unanimous support for including this sentence."  
 
If we choose options 2 or 3, I believe we should insert a footnote that 
explains what was done and why.
 
The comments are due by 10 February, which is 8 days before our next meeting, 
so we need to resolve this before then.  To get that process started, it might 
help to get a sense of where varous Councilors are on this. To do that, I would 
like to ask as many Councilors as possible to respond on this list to the 
following:  
 
*       Which of the options do your prefer and why? (1, 2, 3, none)
Based on the responses received, we can then discuss how to reach final 
resolution.
 
Whatever we do, I think it is important to understand that the bracketed 
statement is accurate so it is not a matter of accuracy but rather a matter of 
whether we want to say it or not.
 
Chuck
         
        
________________________________

        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:06 AM
        To: GNSO Council List
        Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; _Glen=22?=; 
Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: 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
        ***********************************************************
         


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>