<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public Participation
- To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public Participation
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:08:15 -0500
- In-reply-to: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB18F130DA07@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <A46D2BAA-538E-4381-9B01-37E45810F611@acm.org> <C5ADB782.6DCB%stephane.vangelder@indom.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB18F130DA07@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcmF1RTI9TBfFaX7VEiBCL75IaJsZwAEc7ogAAh8LrA=
- Thread-topic: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public Participation
I agree that this is a good edit.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:05 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board
> regarding Public Participation
>
>
> That seems a fine edit to me.
>
> It certainly was the intention.
>
> Adrian Kinderis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:58 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board
> regarding Public Participation
>
>
> Thanks to Adrian and all involved in the drafting of this letter.
>
> I have just one comment re the paragraph requesting that
> staff and Board members answer the questions raised during
> public sessions directly (I have copied the paragraph below
> for clarity). Is the intent here that staff and/or Board
> should answer all questions directly during the session? Or
> is the request that answers be provided at some point after
> the session as was the case with the document published by
> staff after Cairo? I think this just needs a little
> clarification in the text. Assuming it is the latter, I
> propose the following edit below (marked by start and end
> points in caps and
> brackets):
>
> The quality of these sessions and the satisfaction of
> participants can often be gauged on the level of ICANN Board
> interaction. The GNSO Council would like the ICANN Board and
> staff to continue with the practice started in Cairo of
> responding directly to questions where appropriate, (SVG EDIT
> BEGINS) either at the time or in a subsequent document to be
> published not long after the meeting, as was the case in
> Cairo.(SVG EDIT ENDS) These sessions should not simply be
> Œone way traffic¹. The audience benefits from hearing direct
> responses from the ICANN Board and staff on relevant issues.
> Many believe that it is the duty of a Board Member, in taking
> on the role, that they actively engage their constituents.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
>
>
> Le 03/02/09 00:12, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In order to get this sent as soon as possible, I would like
> to avoid
> > waiting until we have a meeting for the approval.
> >
> > So, I ask for a 24 hour call on this document. If there are no
> > comments I will send it to the Board with a copy to the appropriate
> > Staff leadership on Wednesday 4 Feb at 0000 UTC.
> >
> > If there are any comments or corrections, the call will
> continue for
> > another 24 hours from when the revised version is sent to the list.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 Feb 2009, at 17:13, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> In Cairo I was asked to head a drafting team to author a letter to
> >> the ICANN Board conveying our disappointment in the Public
> >> Participation sessions at the Cairo Meeting and to address the
> >> concern that ICANN was trending to reduce the amount of ³contact
> >> sessions² between the Public and the Board a vital part of the
> >> ICANN Meetings.
> >>
> >> Please find attached the letter that we submit to the Council for
> >> approval to go to the Board.
> >>
> >> Avri, can you please provide the appropriate comment period and
> >> detail the process for this to happen.
> >>
> >> Thanks to Chuck, Avri and Kristina for their assistance.
> >>
> >> Adrian Kinderis
> >>
> >>
> >> <GNSO letter to the Board RE Public Participation.doc>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|