RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Mike.  

I would also add the positions various groups have expressed in addition to 
what staff chose to include in DAG v. 3.  For example, the RySG supermajority 
submitted an option on this issue, but that was not included, for whatever 
reason (and without explanation), by ICANN staff in DAG v. 3.  I will send this 
around shortly so we can put it on the Wiki.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
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-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:17 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week


A key first step is for Staff to compile a list of all the materials that
they have used or acquired thus far in developing the policy they set forth
in the last DAG.  This includes the antitrust experts' reports and all
supporting documentation and evidence, any Staff reports on the issue (to
the Board or otherwise), any prior RSTEP requests or Registry Agreement
renegotiation materials leading to the change in some registry agreements
from the com/net/org model, etc. etc.

I assume the group is unanimous in wanting these materials, and the Council
specifically requested all background materials from Staff for consideration
by the WG.  So if Staff could provide an estimate as to when they will be
produced, that also can inform the early work schedule of the WG.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week


Dear WG members,

Margie has asked that a couple of agenda items be added:

1.      Initiating a Public Comment Forum--- per the Bylaws, we are required
to initiate a public comment period when we initiate a PDP.  In other PDPs
we often use that opportunity to solicit input on specific issues-  so the
working group might want to determine what information it might want to seek
during the initial public comment forum.

2.      Scheduling Staff support-   at our GNSO wrap up meeting, Tim Ruiz
requested an antitrust briefing at the commencement of the process.  Do we
want that at the first meeting, or at the second meeting?  Also, would other
briefings be appropriate, such as having Staff brief the working group on
the latest documents released during Nairobi on Vertical Integration?

Stéphane

Le 18 mars 2010 à 16:46, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> Dear VI WG members,
> 
> Please find below my draft agenda for the meeting we will soon schedule
for next week.
> 
> This must still be seen as a preliminary meeting, where a number of
housekeeping tasks are to be performed, not least choosing a Chair.
> 
> For simplicity's sake, I would suggest the group elect its Chair by a
simple voice vote during the call, but if others feel that is too rough a
procedure, I would naturally welcome other proposals.
> 
> In order to get that process rolling, may I suggest that any nomination
for Chair be made without delay, and that we set a deadline for these
nominations at the day before our conference call is scheduled, so that all
WG members have had a chance to consider the potential candidates? 
> 
> Please also note the agenda item on limited the number of participants on
the WG. As things stand, the GNSO secretariat has received over 50 requests
from volunteers. I am of the opinion that beyond 20 members, any WG becomes
too large to manage. Considering that the Nairobi Board resolution has
placed this WG in the spotlight with regards to coming up with a policy on
VI sooner rather than later, my advice to the group would be to voluntarily
limit its breadth to maintain efficiency. I suggest a method of doing that
in the agenda, but once again other suggestions are welcome.
> 
> One last point, I hope there will be time on the call to consider Obj 5.
As a reminder, the Council has asked to WG to come back with either a final
Obj 5 or 2 possibles for that Obj by its next meeting. This means that
ideally, the WG would need to put something forward by March 24.
> 
> Please let me know directly if you have other agenda items you wish to see
included.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Agenda for VI WG call on March XX, 2010
> 
> 1. Roll call
> 2. Election of WG Chair.
>       2.1. Review of nominations for Chair.
>       2.2. Do nominated candidates accept their nominations?
>       2.3. Q&A with the WG.
>       2.4. Chair election by voice vote.
> 3. WG participation.
>       3.1. Discussion, should WG participation be limited?
>       3.2. If WG wishes to limit participation to a set number, how could
this be done? (One suggestion, limit to 2 participants per GNSO group, then
2 participant per other SO or AC).
>       3.3. If method of participation limitation agreed on, call for WG
members to go back to their respective groups and get the names of their
definitive participants.
> 4. Frequency of WG calls (weekly, other?).
> 5. Objective 5.
> 6. AOB.
> 
> Stéphane
>