Re: [council] Regarding joint SO/AC initiatives
- To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Regarding joint SO/AC initiatives
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:02:37 +0200
- In-reply-to: <B7ACC01E42881F4981F66BA96FC14957032DE58A@WIC001MITEBCLV1.messaging.mit>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acnee71iGFoPf/QAR9msolGCQXJktAAAO9igABXizBwAIUc5cAAFBP/RAAZ8n6AAATV2aw==
- Thread-topic: [council] Regarding joint SO/AC initiatives
- User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302
Thanks for that explanation Bruce.
Just to be clear, my initial suggestion on the SO/AC sessions was not linked
to the other suggestions made by Avri. For me, they are different topics.
Le 28/05/09 13:36, « Bruce Tonkin » <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a
> Hello Stéphane,
>> While I see the logic of what you are suggesting, I'm not
>> sure I understand
>> how you link that to the joint SO/AC sessions.
>> Forgive me if I simply misunderstood what you are saying, but are you
>> suggesting that these topics be handled in those sessions?
> Actually I was suggesting that the joint public sessions that have been run so
> far - are good for speakers from each side expressing their points of view -
> but they don't help reach any consensus/compromise. In fact they are probably
> better for discussing brand new policies where wide ranging views are useful
> at the beginning of a policy development exercise. I was suggesting that to
> move forward on issues such as geographic names that you may consider a
> different approach of getting smaller working groups of experts together to
> consider the issues further.
> Bruce Tonkin