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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Having heard no opposition and with the timeline short, we took on board 
Kristina's phraseology and Glen's sending, hope that's ok with everyone.

Bill

On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:

> 
> I agree with Tim.  I knew it was there and also assumed it was part of the 
> letter.
> 
> Take care
> Terry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 8:11 AM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
> 
> 
> I completely agree with Caroline, and no footnote necessary in my
> opinion. There were no questions or objections raised regarding that
> sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter. But if
> there are objections to that then we should at least follow through with
> what we voted to do and go with option 1. Let's not make this overly
> complicated, these comments need to be submitted on time.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the
> ARR]
> From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 9:06 am
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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:
> Submit the comments as is with the statement and the bracketsRemove the
> sentence from the commentsLeave 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:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
>