RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK. Here's Adrian's perspective.

I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and not getting 
their hands dirty.

Why don't they prove that their isn't demand and that there will be no benefit 
to consumers?

I met with the Australian GAC representative yesterday and I am concerned that 
the GAC is simply three voices in a room that push an agenda shared by those 
three voices.

I propose the following;

- ignore their request to participate based on the fact that we have simply 
dealt with these issues long ago and that they are somewhat fruitless 
discussions at this 11th hour
- ask them to define the consensus and how it is generated in the GAC, in 
particular with respect to this particular point of view on new gTLD's

We all have far too much to do.

As far as prioritizing work and discussions within the GNSO Council I believe 
this would fit nicely towards the bottom (coincidentally where my football team 
finished this season!).

Thanks. 

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 8:22 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting


Hi,

while not the same words, pretty much what i said.
but i promised to report it in a neutral manner.

GAC is being rather insistent.
they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting.

the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a  
Monday
unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them.

i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and  
said so.
but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be  
cancelled.

a.


On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to  
> one
> side's opinions versus the other's.  Isn't that basically where we
> started in the New gTLD PDP process?
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting
>> for Seoul was discussed.
>>
>> The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a
>> topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09.
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush
>> -18aug09-en.pdf
>>
>> Specially based on the following sentence:
>>
>> "The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has
>> not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs
>> provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be
>> outweighed by the potential harms."
>>
>> So the topic would be:
>>
>> Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential
>> benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the
>> potential harms
>>
>> We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs
>> and ACs before next week.
>>
>> I have also reported this under the status section of the
>> Agenda for this week.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>