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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,
I am able to help you, the only inconvenience is that I am travelling to
Tokyo on Thrusday and I will be several hours on planes and without
connectivity.
Regards
Olga

2010/2/5 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
>
>
>