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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill and Glen.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:02 AM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter 
> on the ARR]
> 
> 
> 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
> > ***********************************************************
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>