RE: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena

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

Bill,

Please see the attached email message that I sent to the Council list.
Note that I mentioned this in the 28 October Council meeting and
forwarded Liz's paper shortly thereafter.  Because of the 15 November
deadline for agendas and related documents for Cartagena meetings, we
could not wait until the 18 November meeting.

In a subsequent email message I communicated that both Chris and Heather
are supportive of the topic and forwarded Liz's paper to their groups.

Detailed agendas and questions are still to be developed. Your
suggestions will be helpful in that regard.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:23 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Bill,
> >
> > Your suggestions fit nicely into the topic that has already been
> > selected by all three groups (GNSO, GAC & ccNSO)
> 
> Thanks, I must have missed this conversation; happily, I'm not alone
in
> that.  When did the Council discuss this?
> 
> > based on the paper that
> 
> > Liz produced regarding what needs to be done in the future regarding
> > community WGs.  It seems natural to me to talk about successes and
> > failures of the Rec6 CWG and the JAS WG as we explore how we
> facilitate
> > CWGs going forward.
> 
> Ok, but I wasn't suggesting a discussion about the procedural aspects
> of CWGs (although some time on that would be good too), but rather
> about the substantive issues and proposals involved in these two
cases.
> 
> Where's the topic specified, do we have a list of discussion questions
> per previous?
> 
> Thanks much,
> 
> Bill
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:37 AM
> >> To: GNSO Council List
> >> Subject: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> On tomorrow's call we are to discuss "6.2 Topic(s) for Joint
> meetings
> >> with the GAC & ccNSO"
> >>
> >> We've just had two intensive and successful group collaborations on
> >> questions of particular interest to the GAC, namely Rec. 6/former
> MAPO
> >> and JAS/applicant support.  Wouldn't it be helpful to hear GAC
> >> perspectives and engage in some dialogue with them on a) the
outputs
> > of
> >> these groups, and how well they speak to concerns GAC has raised in
> > the
> >> past, and b) how those outputs should be dealt with going forward?
> >> Given all the efforts expended and the pressing need to settle this
> >> stuff to the community's satisfaction, one would think this is the
> > best
> >> way we could use the time.  Unless of course we'd prefer to talk
> about
> >> categories :-)
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ***********************************************************
> >> William J. Drake
> >> Senior Associate
> >> Centre for International Governance
> >> Graduate Institute of International and
> >> Development Studies
> >> Geneva, Switzerland
> >> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> www.williamdrake.org
> >> ***********************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>

--- Begin Message ---

• To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups
• From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:25:26 -0500
• List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Sender: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Thread-index: Act2GWVtPReHw4uMSZ+E1x/PuTY/eQA9JYAw
• Thread-topic: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups

As I briefly mentioned in our meeting earlier today, a possible topic for 
discussion with the GAC and ccNSO in our joint meetings with them in Cartagena 
is the topic of procedures for joint SO/AC working groups or community working 
groups.  As you can see by Liz's email below, I requested that Staff prepare a 
paper listing some of the issues that might need to be considered in that 
regard.  Please review this and share any comments you have and provide any 
opinions you have about suggesting this topic  to the GAC and ccNSO.  If there 
are any objections to suggesting this as a topic for either joint meeting, 
please let me know by Wednesday of next week.  If there are none, I will 
suggest the topic to Heather and Chris and send the attached discussion 
document as well.

 

Thanks to Liz and any other staff members who helped develop the discussion 
paper.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:23 PM
To: gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups

 

All,

 

On the last chairs call, Chuck suggested that it might be useful to encourage 
discussion between the GNSO Council and the ccNSO and GAC (and ALAC...) about 
the benefits and potential issues associated with cross-SO/AC working groups 
and whether/how their role might be better defined in the future.  To stimulate 
that discussion, we prepared the attached draft at Chuck's request. 

 

The questions are just suggestions, we have not yet engaged in any internal 
consultation, and  we do think it will be important to consult with the General 
Counsel's office to solicit their input and guidance.

 

Please let us know if this is what you had in mind, and if you would like 
anything further.

 

Thanks, Liz

Attachment: Cross SO AC policy discussion.docx
Description: Cross SO AC policy discussion.docx

--- End Message ---