ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-arr-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Group call?
  • From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 18:51:08 +0100

Chuck, Olga,

Thanks for offering.  This has to be done Wednesday 10th.  As I say I should 
have wifi access depending on the rooms we're in and the whims of the UN's 
crack staff, in which case I can help, but I can't promise to handle lead 
drafting and coordination.

BD


On Feb 6, 2010, at 6:28 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy