RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT.
Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the Council in
Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different representative from that point
forward.
The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the IRT's
recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC suggests that
the Council request that the former IRT identify a small group of its members
to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT and whatever "entity" takes
the work forward. In particular, it would be most productive for that group to
include at least one former IRT member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse
Proposal and one who worked on the URS proposal. (The IRT work was done
through several work teams. Those former IRT members who worked on the
specific recommendations will be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings,
to explain the reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being
able to call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will
be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> If we do decide to go for a DT,
I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have
proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.
I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a
published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who
are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.
This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on
Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the
suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we
cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now.
I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison
groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time
for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the
work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the
Thursday meeting.
Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG
to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative
each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling
at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team
immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members
who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them
among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not
necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the
people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in
other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership).
We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we
schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time.
The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting
(https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009
), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting
(https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?
agenda_29_oct_2009).
a.