ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:55:20 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <FAC768A0-B284-4B00-9A7F-EB6F8DBA68BC@acm.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcfDDvHVNwIOIHMMRDGOO3c6vxnIugAAuFlg
  • Thread-topic: [council] Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA

I am one who strongly advocates an extensive tutorial session regarding
the new gTLD recommendations in L.A.  One of the things that was
terribly obvious in San Juan was the large amount of misunderstanding
and confusion about the full set of recommendations. We only had time to
focus on a few and there was not enough interaction.  If we do not have
time to answer people's questions from all parts of the community, I am
afraid that there may be reservations about moving the process forward.
On the other hand, if we have plenty of time for interactive discussions
about peoples' concerns, then I believe that most will become much more
comfortable with the work we have done.

I also believe that it would be very good to schedule such a session so
that GAC members and Board members can participate.  The GAC will
undoubtedly develop a statement in L.A. regarding new gTLDs in response
to the Board report that will be sent to them in September; the more
opportunity they have to gain understanding the better.  Also, it was
clear in San Juan that several Board members had misconceptions about
the full set of recommendations, so it is critical that they also get
their questions answered.

We need to recognize that most of us have been working with this for
over a year and a half.  We have grappled with all of the issues that
people are raising but it is not possible to adequately deal with them
for those who have not been part of the process in a two hour session or
for that matter in a four hour session.

Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:21 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA
> Hi,
> > Item 8: Initial planning for LA (10 min)
> >
> > 8.1 Review suggestion for full day equivalent session on New gTLD 
> > recommendations It has been suggested that it would be 
> useful to do a 
> > full day's meeting (perhaps split into two sessions on 
> different days) 
> > to cover all of the recommendations in the New gTLD PDP 
> that will have 
> > been sent on to the board by then. Different council members could 
> > take leadership of discussion section on each of the 
> recommendations.
> The reason for this suggestion is that the recommendations 
> will have been sent on to the board by this time and the 
> subject matter will be under discussion during the meeting.  
> The thought was that some of the recommendations are complex 
> and would gain from a council explanation of the thinking 
> behind the resolutions and the implications for 
> implementation.  This session would be cast as an extended 
> tutorial in terms of explanation and Q&A.
> The council needs to decide if we support this 
> recommendation.  If so, we need to start planning.  One issue 
> that has come up regarding this session is the reality of a 
> crowded M-F schedule.  An option that has been mentioned 
> involves doing this session on Sunday before the meeting.  
> This would mean either cutting the GNSO pre-session work to a 
> single day, which may not be a problem, or starting earlier
> - on Friday.  The council should decide on this as soon as 
> possible in order to allow announcements and scheduling if we 
> decide that we want to do this.
> >
> > 8.2 - suggestion for restructuring Public Forum + Public meetings
> >
> > Proposal to try an experiment with the Public Forum and 
> public council 
> > meeting in LA. Instead of the current arrangement of a meeting for 
> > listening and then a meeting for talking, we could divide a 4 hour 
> > meeting up into topical sections. Each topic could then be 
> structured 
> > to include:
> > - Constituency Overview on the Topic
> > - Public comment on the topic
> > - Council discussion and resolution on the Topic.
> This recommendation comes out of a desire to respond to the 
> frustration expressed in the GSNO Open Forum in SJ.
> thanks
> a.

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