Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Group call?

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I think it would be very helpful considering our very short time frame, 
> assuming Bill can do it.  We need to finalize a proposal for the Council by 
> Wednesday.
>  
> Glen - Would you or Gisella please do a Doodle for this?
>  
> Chuck


Hi,

I'm very sorry, but as this has moved more slowly than expected I'm afraid my 
schedule's now going to be a problem at this end.  I have must-do meetings at 
the UN all day Sunday-Tuesday, except for a couple hours Monday afternoon.  If 
Doodle reveals that a call Monday between 15:00-18:00 CET works for others then 
I could join, but the only time I'm going to have to contribute to any focused 
writing of text would be tomorrow Saturday and then Wednesday.  Re: Saturday 
I'm not clear what I could write at this point as a) we are awaiting 
clarification of the timeline, which may affect the advisability of different 
formulas for both qualifications and the procedures for soliciting/processing 
applications, and b) we've not had a lot of discussion on these points yielding 
a clear consensus.  Re: Wednesday, being six hours ahead of EST helps somewhat, 
but as any text will need to be batted back and forth and agreed, waiting until 
then for anything more than last edits seems problematic.

That being the case, in the key Sunday-Tuesday period someone else may have to 
coordinate the aggregation of inputs and tweaking of consensus text.  Assuming 
the wifi works in the meeting rooms I can turn off my headphones sometimes and 
try to help, but that's about it.  Is anyone willing and able to step in then?

So how far down field can we push the ball tomorrow?  Re: qualifications, Chuck 
and Kristina have suggested some possible additional qualifications to those 
set forth in the call for applications.  I would note that if ICANN announces 
on Monday that applicants have another week, i.e. due the 24th instead of the 
17th, and we adopt a bunch of GNSO-specific requirements on the 18th, it will 
be pretty important to ensure that everyone who may be working on an app gets 
fully apprised quickly, as they won't have much time.  To be honest, I can 
imagine problem scenarios and wonder about the efficacy of setting additional 
requirements for this first, somewhat experimental RT process.  But if everyone 
else feels strongly that we need these, ok.

Re: process, Chuck has proposed a framework in his 2 Feb message, inter alia 
with the council forming a rating team of one Councilor from each SG plus one 
NCA, top ranked applicants then needing a simple majority vote of each house, 
and the council ultimately endorsing up to six.  We'd need to flesh this out a 
bit.  And Rafik has raised concerns about Chuck's suggestion re: geographical 
diversity, I raised a question as to whether the each applicant should have to 
get a majority of each house, and Caroline and Tim suggested we we should let 
each SG do their own internal process.  Here too I'm not clear from the 
responses what the level of consensus is, but it's the end of a long day and 
I'm groggy and probably missing something.

Anyway, if we could have more discussion around these two bits and identify 
points of consensus I can try to do something tomorrow, or conspire if someone 
wants to collaborate.

Best,

Bill