RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
Chuck,
Our processes are open. Our sessions are recorded and transcribed. We must
have time to meet as a Council, without outside distraction and influence,
just like in our regular conference calls. The Council's weekend sessions
have devolved to near worthlessness over the past several meetings, imho.
The Board's letter seems quite clear to me. What are your questions that
need clarification? Probably best to air them via email before we get to
Seoul, so we can be more productive while there?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:49 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Council GNSO
Subject: 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.
> >
> >
>
>