ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow2tf] 12/22 conference call

  • To: "'Jordyn A. Buchanan'" <jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] 12/22 conference call
  • From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:43:09 -0500
  • Cc: GNSO Secretariat <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 2DOW2tf <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I would be available 12/30 at the stated time and could probably arrange to
be available 12/23 at that time if that is preferable to the group.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:37 PM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: GNSO Secretariat; 2DOW2tf
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] 12/22 conference call 

Hi Steve:

In looking at the responses (and lack of questions, including the ones 
that I'm supposed to be circulating), it seems that a call on Monday is 
probably not well-advised.

I think that a call on 12/23 or on 12/30 (also at 11:30 AM ET) may be 
the best, given the schedule constraints that people have submitted so 
far.  In either case, Steve's request that questions be circulated no 
less than 24 hours in advance of the call is a reasonable one.  I'll 
look to finally get mine circulated over the weekend.


On Dec 19, 2003, at 5:30 PM, Steve Metalitz wrote:

> I remain available to participate in a TF2 conference call Monday 
> 12/22 but
> if the goal is to "finalize/approve questions to be sent out," I 
> request
> that these questions be circulated at least 24 hours in advance of the 
> call.
> Thank you.
> Steve Metalitz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 3:38 AM
> To: 2DOW2tf
> Subject: [dow2tf] Clarification of participation in WHOIS task force
> calls by alternates
> [To: dow2tf[at]gnso.icann.org
> From Bruce Tonkin, GNSO Council Chair:
> Clarification of participation in WHOIS task force calls by alternates
> Hello All,
> At its meeting on 20 Nov, the GNSO Council decided:
> "That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be
> allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences
> and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single 
> teleconference
> or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to
> represent the constituency's views."
> Following initial meetings of the WHOIS task forces, clarification was
> sought on when it would be appropriate for constituency 
> representatives,
> attending a teleconference or physical meeting as alternates to the
> primary constituency representative, to speak.
> Brian Darville, chair of WHOIS task force 3, offered the following
> approach:
> "We do allow alternates to speak on issues of general informational
> interest. The scope of the Task Force's work encompasses gathering and
> analyzing information.  Many of the alternates, some of whom have
> significant ICANN experience and historical knowledge, can contribute
> significantly in furthering the Task Force's work by simply providing
> historical information or indicating the availability of other
> information germane to the issues the Task Force is addressing. Of
> course, under no circumstances will any alternate be allowed to
> represent the views of the constituency or provide the vote of any
> constituency (unless the designated representative is absent on the
> call)."
> The GNSO Council discussed this issue during its meeting on 18 Dec 
> 2003.
> It was recognised that alternates play a valuable role in task force
> work in using their own network of contacts and resources to collect
> data together for the task force.  Normally alternates would provide
> their work through the primary constituency representative on the task
> force.  It was noted however that during a particular call or physical
> meeting an alternate may have some useful "factual" information to
> provide that is relevant to the discussion.   Note that ICANN staff
> members and the GAC liaison have typically operated in that mode during
> GNSO council calls.  It was noted that a balance needs to be struck
> between alternates offering information that might be strongly related
> to a particular constituency viewpoint (e.g isolated events, anecdotal
> information, or a reference to a Web blog or an academic paper
> expressing a particular opinion) as opposed to factual information (e.g
> a reference to an existing ICANN policy, or a reference to a previous
> statistical survey, or ICANN workshop).
> The Council recommended that the chair of each task force be given the
> discretion to take advantage of the availability of alternate members
> for the purposes of providing factual information, whilst ensuring that
> each constituency expresses their particular opinion/viewpoint on the
> policy issue under consideration through a single representative during
> any single call or physical meeting.   If a particular constituency
> believes that the intent of the motion of 20 Nov (which ensures fair
> participation by all constituencies regardless of their size and
> resources) is not being met, this should be raised with the chair of 
> the
> task force, through their representative on the task force.  If a
> consituency is unable to resolve the issue with the task force chair,
> then the constituency can request guidance from the GNSO Council,
> through their representatives on the GNSO Council.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Chair, GNSO Council
> posted by: GNSO Secretariat

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>