Fwd: Stuff to do before the council meeting on 28th

[William Drake]

I should have sent this to NCUC-members too, sorry.  It's getting confusing with the different lists/conversations...

Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> Date: January 8, 2010 8:25:04 AM CST
> To: NCSG-Policy <ncsg-policy at n4c.eu>
> Subject: Stuff to do before the council meeting on 28th
> 
> Hi
> 
> *On the last December council call I said we were still debating our position on a VI PDP and would be submitting a position statement, because at the time people seemed to think we should do that and we had Milton's text.  Chuck referred to that statement yesterday, so presumably councilors are expecting to hear from us.  Probably not on pins and needles though, and nobody will hari kari if we don't, but after all we're the folks who brought all this up....so we need a) to determine if there's an NCSG position, or at least an NCUC position, before the vote and b) whether we want to do a document, evolved from Milton's draft (see prior comments below) or something else.  If the latter, perhaps something keyed off of/responding to the staff paper, particularly the imperial procedural dimensions, would be merited if we have the bandwidth.
> 
> *i raised on the council call an objection to the AOC draft paper's argument that it is self evident and a no brainer that the review teams should be small little groupings, argued there should be two councilors rather than one on each team, and suggested that the council should submit a written reply.  Nobody objected, so Chuck asked for volunteers for a drafting team on the latter.  Only me Olga and Caroline of .mobi expressed willingness, but by this point 2 1/2 hours in people were dropping off the call and others may have needed more time to consider.  Hence Glen will issue a call for volunteers on the list.  The time frame is short, people seem to think we should have a draft by the end of next week, or that weekend.  I'll be wrapping up family stuff here in Chicago and then traveling to Geneva so I won't be able to do much until the latter half of next week, and Caroline is pushing for a call Monday when I'll be on a plane.  So it would be good if someone else from NCSG were to get involved too.  The group is to not only draft a letter on size to staff/board but also try to formulate a proposal re: how council will handle this internally, e.g. selection of nominees, whether the GNSO people on the teams must be councilors, are they representatives of council supposed to reflect whatever degree of consensus view or free agents (parallel to the MAG debates in IGC), etc.
> 
> BD 
> 
> On Jan 6, 2010, at 8:24 AM, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> It seems that we are going to be a bit light in this meeting, participation-wise.  I will attend but as I've told some of you I've been dealing with a terminally ill mother here in Chicago so I've really not thought about ICANN stuff in weeks.  Will try to get my head into it.
>> 
>> Re: VI, Milton asks for specific language suggestions on his text.  On our last call I think I'd suggested sort of bullet pointing the main elements in the argument, softening the language stating VI's the wrong term (e.g. "we suggest it may be more useful to think of this as joint marketing" rather than "this is not correct," etc), addressing PIR's concerns directly, clarifying the shift from our August doc as to whether there's a policy issue here, etc.  However, at this point it might not be desirable to spend a lot of cycles trying to rework the thing, and with him not being on the call textual de/reconstruction would be an issue. If we feel it's useful to submit a second position statement, perhaps it'd be better to do it ASAP, given tomorrow's discussion and the presumed vote on a PDP on the 28th (and who knows, people might say let's do it tomorrow if there's a clear general inclination).  But in this case, do we have consensus in support of the text/position?  I've not not been clear on where everyone is on this, and hence how we want to play things tomorrow.
>> 
>> On the other council items, I'm scanning the IDN, AGP, and prioritization docs and am not clear on whether there are distinct NC perspectives that need to be brought to the table.  Hopefully others here are more attuned.  On the AOC, my instinctive reaction is that it might be good to put down a NC marker, although given the lack of clarity about how the teams will be constituted etc this would be sort of anticipatory and need nuance.  Whether the council could agree a unified stance is another question that's unclear.
>> 
>> Anyway, talk to some of you in 40 minutes.
>> 
>> BD
>> 
> 

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100109/eb75ef8e/attachment.html>