ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team
  • From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:37:53 +0200
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <1220DEFC-AAEF-410C-87C6-9497B261DCEC@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <1220DEFC-AAEF-410C-87C6-9497B261DCEC@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Stéphane

On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:58 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 
> Councillors,
> 
> The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and 
> Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels.
> 
> They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, 
> but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are 
> trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the 
> Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the 
> Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO 
> Council could meet with them on Sunday morning.
> 
> However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very 
> full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be 
> useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in 
> meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged 
> with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a 
> meeting planned with the RT.

NCSG will meet with the RT, but the time will undoubtedly be taken up 
completely with concerns specific to us (there being a lot).  We probably won't 
be able to get into anything pertaining to concerns of the Council or larger 
community.  So for us at least, a meeting would not be redundant.  Personally I 
think it could be very useful, the RT really does need more input and data 
points to work with.

> 
> If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the 
> question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the 
> other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any 
> need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT?

Is there a revised draft schedule somewhere reflecting the most recent changes 
you mentioned?

Bill



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>