|
I echo Chuck's concerns in this regard, for reasons similar to what I just outlined in my last email regarding secret ballots.
At the same time, I take Mike's point that we should try to maximize Council time and efficiency, particularly when we've got so much on our collective plates at this time. I don't mean to presume on the Chair's duties, but would it be possible to control the time in such a way as to effect this? Perhaps by limiting the number of representatives of each self-identified interest group who wishes to speak?
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/15/2009 11:48 AM >>> 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. > > > > > > |