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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Of course, that's what we try to do for every meeting - factual status
reports from WG Liaisons or Chairs. Those are a part of the public
record. If the Council wants to request Staff that such a status report
on the VI WG be communicated directly to the Board, that's fine. 

That said, I still have seen no justification for changing the date of
the Council meeting that's been set for months and that some of us have
made hard plans around. If some Councilors choose IGF functions over
ICANN functions that's their choice. Others have made other plans for
the week of the 8th. I don't see why one group should have priority over
another.

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum 
attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
From: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:55 am
To: 
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>

I agree with Stephane and support his suggestion. I think the Council
should put in at least a brief communication about the preliminary
report rather than say nothing at this point - although a few Board
members are (as Tim mentioned) very well aware of the state of things,
it would be preferable if the whole Board and the community can receive
something from us, however short or bland.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>To:"Gomes,
Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>CC:<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <krosette@xxxxxxx>,
<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: 7/20/2010 3:59
AMSubject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010

We might just want to think about communicating something as a response
to the initial report that the VI WG will put before us, but holding up
on any vote until we can either get nearly all council members in
attendance or we get a final report from the WG.

If we do decide to take this path, perhaps a couple of sentences in the
minutes and we ask Glen to inform the Board secretariat accordingly?

This way, we both do our job as custodians of the policy process in
informing the Board of our current progress and we don't go overboard in
acting on the WG's prelim report.

Thoughts?

Stéphane 

Le 20 juil. 2010 à 01:27, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> When a request is made, I make it a practice to respond even if there is not 
> much to say.  Of course, if the Council does not want me to respond, I won't. 
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Rosette,Kristina <krosette@xxxxxxx>; Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Mon Jul 19 19:13:18 2010
> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance 
> at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> 
> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>