| Please note that I had requested that the group's draft charter be updated so as not to list me as GNSO observer.
I had also advised them that they might want to make a request for an observer to the Council. I'm sure the group follows the Council list and will also see Chuck making a similar suggestion in his email below.
If such a request does come from them, I would suggest that it would be interesting for the Council to have an observer on the group.
Chuck, you are right that the group is attempting to come up with constructive solutions to the problems created for prospective applicants by the ever-increasing delays to the new gTLD program. I think this is a very positive approach and it will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 9 nov. 2009 à 21:36, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I
believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new
gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take
initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in
developing input to ICANN processes.
I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod,
Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI
effort. In that letter they said, "Our
consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with
minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and
subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board
resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I
conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly
interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say
'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded
parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that
and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because
they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its
role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am
aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their
group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve
the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are
confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in
any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we
would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
Because we have not received a request to provide an
observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an
observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the
GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand
that before making any decisions.
Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is
anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it
is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a
representative from the Council.
Other thoughts are welcome.
Chuck
Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of
interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board
resolutions from the Seoul meeting.
Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no
claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity
and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the
group.
If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group,
I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to
play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have
their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
Date :
6
novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC
Objet :
Update on
"Expressions of Interest" Group
Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting
on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your
willingness to work with us going forward.
Jothan and I and Liz
Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I
attach them here:
1. Our charter
2. Our draft proposal,
incorporating input taken during our first meeting
If you have
comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference,
which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
We have set ourselves a tight schedule
(see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that
the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having
two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal
will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this
methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
In addition to
confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to
join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the
attached documents. We think it's representative of a good
cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse,
and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus.
We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.
One
of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first
call, scheduled for Monday.
I am of course available for questions,
as is Liz.
Thanks for your
participation,
Antony
|