RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue
among other Non-contracted party councilors.  Nonetheless, I agree that
the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it
later.
 
 


________________________________

        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM
        To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina
        Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
        Importance: High
        
        
        ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and
registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue.  It is a well
established fact.  At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not
contribute anything directly.
         
        I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to
leave it fine.
         
        We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are
needed later.
         
        Chuck


________________________________

                From: William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM
                To: Rosette, Kristina
                Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter
                
                
                Hi 

                On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


                         
                        One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st
sentence should read: "...it is important..."


                Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors
around..

                On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                        Nice job Bill.  Two minor, nonmaterial edits:

                        1.      
                                In the 1st sentence of the second
paragraph, change "literatures" to "literature".

                But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures,
not a single body of thought.  Which was the point, a broader scan
beyond the one literature mentioned would have led to a different
conclusion.
                

                        2.      
                                The first sentence of the fifth
paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each relevant of
the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency
team) seems especially problematic."  I think it should say, "Fourth,
selecting just one member from each of the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in
the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially
problematic."

                Ditto the above


                        I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send
to it to the Council list as soon as possible with a request that all
Councilors forward it to their respective groups immediately for review
and discussion, noting that the Council will have to finalize the
comments on 28 January.


                Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address
Kristina's points:
                


                On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:


                        Apologies for belated comments.  This looks
great.  Many thanks to you all for drafting.  
                         
                        I have two questions:  1) What is the point we
are trying to make regarding alternates?  Are we simply raising the
possibility without taking a position?    I was not entirely clear on
that. 


                Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but
nobody really argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can
readily imagine objections to/issues with the approach.  Moreover, if
there were alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but still...)
that this makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less important.
So the wording was intended to put the idea on the table as something
that might be considered without implying it might be a substitute for
multiple slots.  If people think it doesn't work and it'd be better to
make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know.


                        2)  Are we comfortable that the 90% number is
correct?  I ask only b/c I would have thought that persons encompassed
by ALAC would have accounted for more.


                I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and
suggestion.  Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants) in
both GNSO and ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces,
and some people are nominally represented by both even if they're not
active participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive boxes
doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky from some
perspectives...Thoughts?

                Bill