Hi,
I think it would be a good thing to do.
One of the reasons the motion fell, if i understood correctly, was that the staff said it did not have the resources. Well that and some SGs just don't like being told by the Board what to work on.
So, unless the Board actually requests an issues report and a PDP, which of course is a by-laws privileged they have - but not something we can do much about,
or we can ask for an issues report ourselves, though that might not fly.
and of course an AC can ask for an issues report.
Another possibility that occurs to me is a motion to request that staff give an estimate of:
- how much work it would take
- what would be the incremental budget to do the work
- what current project(s) of similar cost would need to be sidelined if there was not incremental budget for this work.
a.
On 7 Feb 2011, at 16:17, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 06:44 PM, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
>> All of which makes GNSO reluctance to pick up role on Consumer Trust, Confidence and Choice look very silly ...strategically!
>
> I agree. Do we want to make a motion pushing the Council to pick it up
> again for the next meeting? (If there's interest, I'll think more about
> the ways we could do so.)
>
> --Wendy
>
>>
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>>
>> Rosemary Sinclair
>>
>> Managing Director, ATUG
>>
>> Chairman, INTUG
>>
>> T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889
>>
>> M: +61 413734490
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Skype: rasinclair
>>
>>
>>
>> Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Drake William
>> Sent: Monday, 7 February 2011 5:01 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: SPAM-LOW: GAC/Board meeting in Brussels
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>
>> There's been previous mention on the list of the GAC-Board meeting in Brussels scheduled for 28 Feb-1 March. Everyone's been sort of in the dark about the details, but today staff replied to the Council on a few aspects, see below. The growing role of governments presents some interesting challenges for ICANN processes (one of the topics we'll discuss at the NCUC pre-conference event in San Francisco on March 11). In addition to Kurt's answers below, the referenced update that was posted on Feb. 2 provides important info. Re: live public attendance, ICANN's provided a full six days notice to RSVP from when the update was quietly posted, and "those whose RSVPs are confirmed will need to submit a copy of an airline ticket, hotel reservation or other indication of their intent to attend in person." Moreover, "Please note that in addition to the open plenary sessions, smaller meetings focused on specific issues may also take place and may be closed to non-participants. If
> they occur, those in these smaller meetings will report on their work during the open plenary sessions." So should anyone make a quick decision to attend, they'll need for their RSVP to be confirmed (hopefully automatic, but...) and then to quickly provide proof of intent, and they won't be allowed into the smaller break-outs where probably the real cards on the table discussions will take place. Transparency and accountability under the AoC...Oh, and apparently the subject matter experts are just staff members...
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the recent US government broadside on the Applicant Guidebook, particularly the censorship and IPR elements, and the unseen positionings of governments that haven't been so bold as to announce their objections yet, this should be a rather interesting meeting. Hope some NCSG people can attend, even if there's no opportunity to speak...
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: David Olive <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Date: February 5, 2011 3:58:59 PM GMT
>>
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <[log in to unmask]>, GNSO Council <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Subject: [council] Re: GAC/Board meeting in Brussels
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Stephane and Council Members:
>>
>>
>> I consulted with Kurt Pritz on the questions raised by some Council
>> members on the GAC/Board meeting in Brussels.
>>
>> Here are answers to those questions.
>>
>>
>> An update on the GAC/Board meeting
>>
>>
>> Kurt: The Brussels session is a Board/GAC discussion, where Board and GAC
>> members will discuss differences, not a public consultation. The goal of
>> the Brussels meeting is to define clearly where the GAC and Board differ,
>> and not to change guidelines or procedures. The GAC identified certain
>> areas of differences, but without concrete or specific details. The
>> consultations are to explore further these topics, understand more of the
>> details from the GAC, and try to seek ways to narrow the differences.
>>
>>
>> Output:
>>
>> A report about the discussions will be issued. If there are any changes
>> recommended that would differ from the GNSO decisions, they would be noted
>> in this report.
>>
>>
>> Public Participation:
>>
>> Like at any Board/GAC sessions at ICANN public meetings, observers are
>> welcome to listen to the discussion. Following GAC procedures, the
>> session will have streaming audio and transcription services
>> (no translations.) There is a February 2 update on the ICANN website with
>> additional information, for those wishing to participate in person.
>> Please refer to:
>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> On others questions on how does the Board intend to draw the line between
>> re-opening the issues and closing remaining specific concerns and subject
>> matter experts.
>>
>>
>> Kurt: That is a hard question, when to close debate on the new gTLD
>> program. The Board said there will be a public comment period.
>> We will listen to those comments and if there is something novel or a new
>> approach suggested, we would propose an amendment
>> to the Guidebook. We will take public comments up to the point when there
>> is a Board decision on new gTLDS. Do you have any ideas on how to end the
>> discussion?
>>
>>
>> Kurt:
>> The subject matters experts are the ICANN staff members who have been
>> handling these topics/issues.
>> (The ICANN staff will present an introduction to the topics and the Board
>> and GAC members will
>> discuss them.)
>>
>>
>> Regards, David
>>
>>
>>
>> David A. Olive
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005
>> Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/11 3:23 AM, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you provide the Council with an update on this meeting and in
>>
>> particular, if the meeting is open to observers and what the meeting
>>
>> agenda is.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many of us have heard various things about the meeting and I think it
>>
>> would be good for the Council to have an "official version". It will help
>>
>> anyone wishing to attend this meeting to plan for that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.williamdrake.org
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
|
