Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some
> observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
> 
> 1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy
> development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of the 3
> motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what I fear
> volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.

Why would that be the result?  As we discussed in the chat space during the 
meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have said fine let's 
cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut down, and the VI 
motion should pass next time.  I guess I am fearless in this regard.

> And it is an
> indication that work management on WG level as well as preparation on SG
> level have to be improved, too.

Undoubtedly these can always be better

> I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council role"
> meeting in Cartagena.
> 
> 2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the discussion
> weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have time enough

> to discuss their questionmarks.

I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had limited 
connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised GCOT section 5 
until the other day, when I sent a note to the Council list expressing concern 
about it.  That said, it wasn't just one SG that voted against it.  It was 6 
NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.   

> In this case normally a request for
> delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving the
> motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a signal
> to the community very different from just rejecting the motion. Maybe
> that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.

The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we want to see 
the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's anyone in the community 
who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs.  But we also want the bits 
on indirect and noncommercial interests fixed too, and this should be done 
simultaneously rather than sequentially.  (Actually, the proxy language needs 
tweaking as well).  And there's reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the 
next meeting would have provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and 
if it didn't then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway.  Wouldn't 
delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more confusing 
signal?

> 
> 3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to see the
> Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an amendment.
> Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with - here I
> join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a task for a
> separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.

How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better to achieve 
balance than to create a separate group?

> The JAS WG
> should just point out that new applicants in scope should be given the
> opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit to be
> defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated with
> outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due to other
> matters of urgency.


Thanks much,

Bill



***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************