RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Sydney meeting

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chick,

Dear All,

 

With respect, I need to make a few amendments to this dialogue which I trust
will be interpreted as simple clarifications to things I read in both
Chuck?s and Ray?s posts.  If I misstate something, please correct me. 

 

As a member of the OSC (BC alternate), and as neither Ray nor Wolf-Ulrich
will be in Sydney (rather I will), I would respectfully note the following:

 

1.      The GCOT will need at minimum one hour to take advantage of a
face-to-face meeting to progress the work team?s efforts.  I had requested a
longer time period for our meeting of our Chair, and it is as a result of
this that we have two hours.  Therefore, should we have no other recourse
but to share the same time slot for the two meetings, I would ask that the
OSC not join the GCOT meeting until a mutually acceptable time is found
(other than as observers, of course, which is always welcome).

 

2.      With regard to the OSC being asked to review the document Ray
has/will send(?) you, our request of the OSC ? as concluded in our
conference call today ? is to review it and then, send it on to the
community at large.  We are NOT looking to the OSC to respond to the two
questions asked (other than in their individual constituency capacity).
Rather, it is my understanding that we are sending the OSC this document for
its consideration and that, lacking significant pushback from the OSC, the
Chair of the work team will send it to the constituencies to get a general
sense from the broader community which form it believes the future GNSO
should take.  Our work team is woefully small to try to make this
determination.  In short, this document is a ?referendum? to see in which
form the ICANN community would like to see its ?next-generation? GNSO.

 

Chuck, as I am a confirmed Sydney OSC participant (vis-à-vis your question
on potential meeting dates), I arrive early Saturday morning, so I could
make myself available for the OSC meeting according to any time agreed by
all.  My preference would be to have the meeting on the first Saturday, and
if the GCOT needs to surrender the second hour of our meeting, provided the
work team is in agreement, then that may be the OSC?s Plan B. 

 

I trust that this clarification helps and, again, to all on this list, if I
have misstated anything I welcome the amendment.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ray Fassett
Sent: 2009-06-11 09:39
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'
Cc: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Sydney meeting

 

Chuck, we have a request from our Work Team for an update from the OSC in
Sydney.  Of note, we have moved our meeting slot from 2:00 pm local time on
Sunday to 1:00 pm which provides us a 2 hour time frame.  I believe this
could provide time if you want to attempt to have the OSC meet with us
during our scheduled meeting.

 

Our aim is two-fold:  Per the attached document, we would like to have OSC
feedback specific to the questions that are contained.  Secondly, we do not
have consensus amongst our team to send this document out to the
constituencies for the purpose of broader feedback to the questions
contained from their respective members.  Upon OSC review of this document,
we are requesting OSC guidance on the question of sending out to the
constituencies for broader membership feedback of the contents specific to
the questions contained.  If you have any questions to our inability to
reach such consensus, please let me know via the list.

 

It was also be helpful to our Work Team for an update in Sydney by the OSC
of the progress status of the other Work Teams.

 

If you have any questions please let me know via the list.

 

Thanks,

 

Ray Fassett