RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Communicate what? That we have nothing to communicate? I don't see the
point. New gTLDs are the biggest project Staff is currently working on
and VI is the biggest open issue of it. At least two, and I think more,
Board members follow the list closely and even join the calls. Believe,
they know exactly where we are.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:09 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry
<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

So what are we debating? Shouldn't we communicate that? I am not
suggesting anything different. But I have become real gun shy about
sending any communication as chair without Council approval.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:01 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO;
> Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> 
> We have not ignored it, we just have no recommendations and the Council
> should not arbitrarily create any. The WG has tried, and I believe they
> intend to continue on unless the Council tells them to stop.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:20 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry
> <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Tell me this Tim: The Board requested that the VI PDP WG provide some
> recommendations; as the manager of the process, do we just ignore their
> request?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:18 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO;
> > Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> >
> > Chuck,
> >
> > Difficult? It's not difficult at all. The WG is nowhere near
> consensus.
> > I know of no reason why we have to call a special meeting or move the
> > scheduled one to act on some motion to notify the Board of something
> > they already know. That makes absolutely no sense. Seems that at
> every
> > turn we keep looking for ways to make more work for ourselves.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:57 pm
> > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry
> > <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > We would be voting on whether to send a response to the Board's
> request
> > that may or may not include the initial report. That simply
> > communicates
> > to the Board that the Council was involved as a manager of the
> ongoing
> > PDP.
> >
> > Why make this more difficult that it already is?
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:37 PM
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO;
> > > Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > >
> > > When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is
> that
> > > it
> > > is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I
> > don't
> > > believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some
> > > perceived
> > > requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I
> > also
> > > don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider
> an
> > > initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it
> > > without Council approval.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm
> > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Tim
> > > Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"
> > > <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled
> > meeting
> > > on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset
> of
> > > Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for
> > > document
> > > submission in advance of their retreat.
> > >
> > > Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The
> GNSO
> > > Council is responsible for managing the policy development process
> of
> > > the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating
> > > Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility,
> > provided
> > > that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each
> House."
> > > The
> > > intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management
> > > responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe
> > that
> > > means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board.
> > That
> > > should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the
> > Council's
> > > role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We
> > could
> > > go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send
> their
> > > report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a
> majority
> > > vote of each House to do it.
> > >
> > > My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize
> attendance
> > > while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under
> > current
> > > procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is
> actually
> > > possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO
> > Operating
> > > Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that
> > > occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> > > > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM
> > > > To: Tim Ruiz
> > > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO
> > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should
> > also
> > > > show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can,
> not
> > > that
> > > > we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the
> > 8th,
> > > > this is a moot point anyway...
> > > >
> > > > Stéphane
> > > >
> > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a
> > minimum
> > > > > quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will
> be
> > > > nothing
> > > > > to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is
> > not
> > > > yet
> > > > > producing a final report and the Council does not create
> policy.
> > > The
> > > > > Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read
> > the
> > > > > report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any
> > > public
> > > > > comment collected on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for
> maximum
> > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > > > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am
> > > > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry
> > > > <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many
> > people
> > > > > absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee
> > > voting
> > > > is
> > > > > permitted.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM
> > > > > To: Rosette, Kristina
> > > > > Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO
> > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for
> maximum
> > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > > > >
> > > > > But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines
> > and
> > > > as
> > > > > you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been
> a
> > > > > tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > stops to get this done asap..?
> > > > >
> > > > > Stéphane
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled
> at
> > > > moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be
> > > taken.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > > > >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM
> > > > >> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry
> > > > >> Cc: Council GNSO
> > > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for
> > maximum
> > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do
> is
> > > > favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to
> > be
> > > in
> > > > conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer
> > > would
> > > > be available if we don't move it?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be
> > > submitting
> > > > any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an
> > > initial
> > > > report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the
> Council
> > > to
> > > > take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be
> out
> > > for
> > > > public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it
> > and
> > > > taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our
> > tradition
> > > > of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is
> > unlikely
> > > > that any action would be taken anyway.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Tim
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -------- Original Message --------
> > > > >> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > > > >> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am
> > > > >> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dear Councillors,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16
> > > > September
> > > > >> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of
> > our
> > > > >> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to
> finalize
> > > > action
> > > > >> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board
> > information
> > > on
> > > > >> VI
> > > > >> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results
> > > > indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the
> contracted
> > > > party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a
> > > meeting
> > > > at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this
> > poll
> > > is
> > > > to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we
> > use
> > > > for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not
> > > > improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold
> > the
> > > > meeting at 11:00 UTC."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no
> > later
> > > > than Monday, 26 July 2010.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Time-zone is active
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you very much.
> > > > >> Kind regards
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Glen de Saint Géry
> > > > >> GNSO Secretariat
> > > > >> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> http://gnso.icann.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >