RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I suspect that we may see a boatload of postings next week!  :)

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:48 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: avri doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today
> 
> 
> If it is any consolation, consider this other resolution also 
> passed by the Board last week and posted today.  As I read 
> it, everything to be discussed in Sydney will have to be 
> posted by the end of next week..... 
> 
> Whereas the Board requested the Public Participation 
> Committee to develop a plan for ensuring that all major 
> meeting material be available at least two calendar weeks in 
> advance of meetings, starting with Sydney; 
> 
> Whereas the Public Participation Committee has found that 
> deadlines for the publication of input documents before 
> ICANN's international public meetings need to be phased in 
> over multiple meetings; 
> 
> Resolved (2009-05-21-15) that documents for consideration by 
> the Governmental Advisory Committee shall be available 15 
> working days prior to the beginning of the Sydney meeting on 
> 21 June 2009, and all other documents shall be available 10 
> working days prior to the beginning of the Sydney meeting. 
> 
> Resolved (2009-05-21-16) that the Public Participation 
> Committee shall review the experiences gathered with this 
> meeting, and propose an operational policy based on these 
> experiences to the Board, to become effective for the Seoul 
> International Meeting. 
> 
> All Board members present unanimously approved of these resolutions. 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:18 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz; Metalitz, Steven
> Cc: avri doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today
> 
> Agreed.  This concerns me as well.  Not bottom-up at all.  
> 
> The upshot is that since Stakeholder Groups are not formally 
> members or staff of ICANN, in theory , we could disregard the 
> Board proposals for changing any of the charters.  Of course, 
> the Board can withhold money or meeting space....but I 
> digress.  Point is that we should treat the Board 
> recommendations on changes to the charters as just 
> that...non-binding recommendations.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc.
> Vice President, Law & Policy 
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended 
> only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may 
> contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you 
> are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail 
> message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, 
> or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
> have received this communication in error, please notify us 
> immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:03 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz; metalitz,steven
> Cc: avri doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today
> 
> 
> "the Board directs the Structural Improvements Committee and 
> ICANN Staff to make the necessary changes to the Stakeholder 
> Group charters to make them consistent with the Board's GNSO 
> Improvements Report"
> 
> I hope you're reading this wrong too Tim, but I don't see any 
> other way it could be read.
> 
> Worrying...
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 29/05/09 15:51, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > The Board and Staff are going to revise our SG charters and we then 
> > have to live with their changes? How is that a bottom-up consensus 
> > driven process? Hopefully I am reading this wrong.
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today
> > From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 8:31 am
> > To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 
> > According to this the revised SG charters and explanatory 
> memorandum 
> > will be posted by Sunday.
> > 
> > Whereas, the Board established a four-phase timetable 
> intended to seat 
> > the newly structured GNSO Council by the ICANN meeting in Sydney, 
> > Australia;
> > 
> > Whereas, the Board acknowledges that the GNSO community has made an 
> > effort to comply with the timetable - including submission 
> of proposed 
> > Stakeholder Group charters;
> > 
> > Whereas, most of these charters require revisions to ensure 
> equitable 
> > participation and representation by new constituencies;
> > 
> > Resolved (2009-05-21-13), the Board directs the Structural 
> > Improvements Committee and ICANN Staff to make the 
> necessary changes 
> > to the Stakeholder Group charters to make them consistent with the 
> > Board's GNSO Improvements Report and related Resolutions, 
> and to post 
> > the revised charters, and an explanatory memorandum, for GNSO 
> > consultation and public comment later this month;
> > 
> > Resolved (2009-05-21-14) the Board will consider any 
> comments and the 
> > Stakeholder Group charters for Board action at the ICANN Sydney 
> > meeting in June 2009.
> > 
> > All Board members present unanimously approved of these resolutions.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:40 PM
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notes from Restructure meeting of 25 
> > May
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Yes, also at the last meeting, Raimundo gave us an update 
> and included 
> > the information that the Board at its Vienna retreat 
> empowered the SIC 
> > to respond to the questions.
> > 
> > A possible exception, not specifically mentioned by Raimundo, being 
> > the issue of house voting on the board seats individually, 
> which they 
> > have not decided on as a board yet, and the derivative issue of 
> > changing of the order in which houses select the seats (Q9). While 
> > this is a critical issue I am not sure, however, that it is 
> a gating 
> > issue for seating the new council in Seoul as the election process 
> > does not begin until early 2010. I do not know the Board's plans 
> > regarding this issue, but I did send a request to the 
> Secretary of the 
> > Board asking for confirmation of the status and received 
> confirmation 
> > that the issue had not yet been decided. Of course once the new 
> > council is seated, the procedure currently in the By-laws would be 
> > invalid and thus the by-laws do need to be changed to deal 
> with this 
> > issue before any Board seat election could take place.
> > 
> > Also it was pointed out that although the SIC meets on 
> Tuesday June 2, 
> > they do sometimes complete decisions via email, so the response 
> > schedule from the SIC is not tightly coupled to their 
> meeting schedule.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 28 May 2009, at 09:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 
> >> My understanding is that the SIC is meeting on June 2nd 
> and my hope 
> >> is that we will receive answers to our questions after 
> that meeting.
> >> 
> >> Chuck
> >> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, 
> >>> Steven
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:41 AM
> >>> To: Avri Doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notes from Restructure 
> meeting of 25 
> >>> May
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Avri, thanks for laying out the timetable below, which is very 
> >>> useful to know. I feel constrained to point out, though, that Q1 
> >>> (regarding seats allocated to the NCSG) is a threshold 
> question from 
> >>> the IPC's viewpoint, and I can't see IPC representatives to the 
> >>> Council being in a position to support any package of by-laws 
> >>> amendments until that issue is resolved.
> >>> 
> >>> Your chart correctly points out that this issue is 
> "waiting on Board 
> >>> determination." So far, the only output we have seen from 
> the Board 
> >>> is Denise's note of a week ago, which
> >>> stated: "The Board approved a resolution that: noted that the 
> >>> proposed SG charters require revisions to ensure equitable 
> >>> participation and representation by new constituencies; 
> directed the 
> >>> Board's Structural Improvements Committee
> >>> (SIC) and ICANN Staff to propose changes to the SG 
> charters to make 
> >>> them consistent with the Board's stated objectives; and 
> directed the 
> >>> SIC to post the revised charters, and an explanatory 
> memorandum, for 
> >>> GNSO consultation and public comment." The text of the resolution 
> >>> still has not been made public.
> >>> 
> >>> Assuming that the issue posed by Q1 was not resolved at 
> last week's 
> >>> Board meeting, it may be that it will be addressed in the 
> proposed 
> >>> changes now being prepared by SIC and the staff.
> >>> Those proposed changes are then to be posted for GNSO 
> consultation 
> >>> and public comment. Perhaps staff could provide an update on the 
> >>> status of these proposals, when they are expected to be 
> posted, and 
> >>> the likely duration of the public comment period, so that we can 
> >>> make a more realistic appraisal of the timetable for by-laws 
> >>> revisions.
> >>> 
> >>> Alternatively, perhaps the Board intends to resolve this issue at 
> >>> its next meeting in Sydney. If so it would be useful to know that.
> >>> 
> >>> Steve
> >>> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:57 AM
> >>> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notes from Restructure meeting 
> of 25 May
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> Report from the Restructuring Meeting.
> >>> 
> >>> 1. Schedule was reviewed.
> >>> 
> >>> Some of the data points in the discussion (some exact 
> dates need to 
> >>> be firmed up):
> >>> 
> >>> a. It is a firm goal, endorsed by the Board, that the new 
> council be 
> >>> seated at the Seoul Meeting.
> >>> b. In order for council members to have travel 
> arrangements it will 
> >>> be necessary for them to be elected by 8 September if not a week 
> >>> earlier (I have asked for official notification of traveller 
> >>> notification date).
> >>> c. Since it is assumed to take 3-4 weeks for SG elections, the SG 
> >>> charters and By-law changes need to be approved by the Board at 
> >>> their 30 July meeting.
> >>> d. The board will require materials (council recommendation on 
> >>> by-law changes and agreed upon SG charters) 4 weeks in 
> advance. This 
> >>> allows for a required Board comment period.
> >>> This means the council needs to have made its 
> recommendation on the 
> >>> by-laws by 30 June. As a separate process, the SIC, 
> Policy Staff and 
> >>> SGs need to finalize the SG charters.
> >>> e. This means we either decide at our public meeting on 
> 23 June, or 
> >>> a special meeting the following week. It is also possible 
> that we do 
> >>> the vote on the the by-laws via an email vote if all of the 
> >>> discussions have been completed.
> >>> f. In order to meet ICANN publication deadlines and to give 
> >>> constituencies a chance to review the material before the public 
> >>> meeting, by-laws and motion should be framed by June
> >>> 9 at the latest (to give 2 weeks)
> >>> 
> >>> It was pointed out that this very tight schedule means 
> that the GNSO 
> >>> constituencies, SGs and Council would need to get very timely 
> >>> reports on Board/SIC decisions.
> >>> 
> >>> 2. We received a SIC update from Raimundo indicating:
> >>> - the Board has empowered the SIC to act on the questions 
> sent for 
> >>> review by this DT
> >>> - the SIC will be meeting shortly and will be able to give the 
> >>> council answers shortly (depends on date of SIC mtg)
> >>> - it is considered necessary to seat the new council in Seoul
> >>> 
> >>> 3. We reviewed question Q5 Q7, Q8, and Q10
> >>> 
> >>> - on Q5 a small group composed of Philip, Chuck, Olga and 
> >>> Mary/Milton are working on text that can be proposed to the list 
> >>> that balances their concerns.
> >>> 
> >>> - on Q7 and Q8, Avri will draft proposed language for 
> these that is 
> >>> based on adhering to a principle of subsidiarity, i.e. making and 
> >>> documenting decisions at the lowest appropriate unit of 
> organization 
> >>> in the bottom up chain.
> >>> 
> >>> - on Q10:
> >>> 
> >>> -- line 45 with reference to the spreadsheet, it was 
> postulated that 
> >>> there is full consensus on the point: "An individual may 
> not serve 
> >>> simultaneously as a GNSO Councilor and an ICANN Board 
> member". This 
> >>> needs confirmation so the issue can marked as resolved.
> >>> 
> >>> -- line 46, alternate text was suggested at the end of 
> the meeting 
> >>> that was not discussed in the meeting, and needs to be 
> discussed on 
> >>> the list:
> >>> " With the exception of voting, no individual or entity shall be 
> >>> excluded from observing a Constituency merely becasue of 
> >>> participation in another Constituency. Each Constituency will be 
> >>> repsonsible for determing its own rules relating to observer 
> >>> participation."
> >>> 
> >>> 4. The next meeting : Monday 1 June at 1300 UTC, but discussions 
> >>> need to continue on the list in order to meet the deadlines.
> >>> 
> >>> 5. The poll on the selection method for NCAs is ongoing:
> >>> http://www.doodle.com/x2ey9ydpq5rga7u9
> >>> 
> >>> 6. An updated spreadsheet is attached. Changes are highlighted.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Please send any comments or corrections to this list.
> >>> 
> >>> thanks
> >>> 
> >>> a.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>