Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Sydney meeting

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed.

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:03:46 
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Ron Andruff'<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'<gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Sydney meeting


Ron, I attached the “kite” document to my original e-mail below.

 

Let me try to be clear what we did not reach consensus upon: Sending out the
document to constituencies for broader community feedback.  Wolf offered
during our call yesterday that a way forward for our Work Team in cases of
not achieving rough consensus is to seek OSC advice per the rules of our
Work Team.  We agreed we would seek OSC member advice to what we were unable
to reach rough consensus which is the sending out of the document to the
constituencies for broader community feedback.  With this said, I agree that
I am, as the Chair of our Work Team, to take the action of sending the
document to constituency representatives for the purpose of broader
community feedback IF upon review of the document by OSC members they are in
agreement this is an appropriate step for our Work Team to take.  OSC review
of the contents is certainly relevant to this question, even if we are not
seeking their response to the specific questions contained (which is what I
recall we also agreed to seek from OSC members but if not then this is fine
with me…I would have listen to transcript to be sure and if in error then
non intentional).

 

Now allow me, speaking as the Chair, to take a moment to explain why we were
able to reach rough consensus on the question of sending out the document to
the constituencies for the purpose of broader community feedback specific to
the three questions contained.  First of all understand that we qualify the
document as not being a recommendation.  The reason we did this is because
we could not reach rough consensus to its contents, specifically as it
pertained to the proposed composition of the GNSO Council.  We went back and
forth at great length on the question of Council structure (as contained)
because work team members were confused by it.  Some of us are still
confused by it.  As agreed by work team members, we sent the document out to
a small group of people experienced in Council activities.  While what we
got back expanded upon simply answering the three questions, it was apparent
to me as the Chair that there was confusion and questions about the
composition of the Council, questions very similar to the confusion within
our own work team.  While we could dismiss this feedback because they did
not just answer the questions we were asking, as the Chair I have not taken
such a tact but instead appreciate that the very same confusion we
deliberated was coming from those experienced in Council matters reading the
document for the first time.

 

As the Chair of this work team, I feel I have an obligation to not encourage
confusion.  Meanwhile, I am experienced enough in ICANN matters to
appreciate that GNSO Council composition is a highly contentious and complex
issue, and a point we deliberated as a work team at quite some length on
more than one occasion.  The purpose of our “flying the kite” is not to
create broader community confusion or to trigger contentious issues for
which the document is not even about or intended.  As the Chair of work
team, I have concerns this could be the unintended result, not only my own
interpretation of the contents but upon hearing questions and comments from
other work team members and those we sought input from.  Through lengthy
discussion, we have an understanding the document is not about formally
changing the composition of the GNSO Council.  We understand it is about the
high level principle of separation of duties.  But unfortunately, the
document is not coming across this way no matter how well we qualify it as
“not a recommendation” and simply for the purpose of “flying a kite”.  This
is the reason we do not have consensus to send out the document beyond the
fact we do not have consensus to its contents (as signified by our
qualifications).  Some members believe there is not a concern for confusion
as a result of broader distribution due to the many qualifications we state
upfront and some members believe that there is such a concern even with the
qualifications.

 

As the Chair, based upon our discussion yesterday, I am formally requesting
the OSC members to review the contents and provide to us opinion as to
whether they believe appropriate for our work team to distribute for broader
community feedback.  As suggested by Wolf, this the appropriate action for
us to take in cases we are unable to reach rough consensus.  As a member of
this work team, I would not send this document out for broader community
feedback in its present form.  As the Chair of this work team, I am seeking
OSC member opinion to this question consistent to the rules of our work team
for instances we are unable to reach rough consensus.

 

I hope that I have adequately explained my position on this matter speaking
as the Chair as best I can in e-mail form for our work team members, others
involved in a support capacity, and to OSC members we are now seeking formal
advice from.  What we are seeking OSC member advice on is this:  Upon review
of the contents, should our Work Team distribute this document as a kite to
constituencies for broader community feedback?  We were unable to reach
consensus on this question.

 

Ray Fassett

 

 

 

 

 

_____  

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Ray Fassett
Cc: GNSO Ops Work Team
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Sydney meeting

 

Thanks Ron but I am now not at all clear what the purpose of the OSC meeting
would be.

 

Chuck

 


_____  


From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:07 AM
To: 'Ray Fassett'; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Sydney meeting

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