RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Mike,
I think we have to be very careful about keeping our processes open, so
I would have a concern in that regard.
On another note, it seems to me that our first order of business
regarding the Board letter should be to develop a process for doing the
work they request us to do. I think it would be premature and
ineffective to start discussing the issues until be have a process in
place. There will be opportunities in ICANN workshops during the week
to discuss the issues. Before we develop a process, it would be helpful
to make sure we understand the request thoroughly, so an interaction
with Denise and possibly a representative from the Board could be a good
start.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
>
>
> Seems the Board has set this as a top priority for the
> Council, obviously.
> So we should setup a long block of time on Sat/Sun in Seoul
> to kick this off?
>
> I have concerns about allowing 'observers' to speak freely at
> the Council sessions, as has become standard practice at our
> weekend sessions but at no other times. It makes the weekend
> sessions far less productive, more time consuming and more
> contentious than warranted. It allows a few well-funded
> members of the community to have far undue influence over
> Council deliberations and policy development. With specific
> respect to the IRT proposals, it will simply allow rehash of
> all the arguments we have heard for months and over several
> meetings, at the expense of actual Council deliberations and
> progress towards policy development.
>
> Of course observers are welcome, but they ought not be
> allowed to speak except during designated Q&A or presentation
> periods as during our Wednesday session. If councilors wish
> to proxy their speaking privilege in any session, that ought
> to be allowed, but there ought be no more people allowed to
> speak than there are Councilors.
>
> Do others agree or disagree with this?
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:30 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
>
>
> We discussed this some in our RySG call yesterday. The one
> clear position that was made is that the process should
> follow the practice we have been following in recent months
> and years to NOT restrict participation to just Councilors.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:22 AM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Was just asked during another meeting whether there was
> any idea of
> > what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order
> to meet the
> > Board deadline on this.
> >
> > I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition
> details to
> > have discussed this at all on the list.
> >
> > I would like to invite the council to begin considering how
> you want
> > to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun
> in the SGs.
> >
> > One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to
> start dealing
> > with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks
> to get it
> > done.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
>
>