Re: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
No offence taken Tim. I was just suggesting an idea. I actually think you idea and Kristina's are very good. Stéphane Le 02/09/09 15:34, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Why couldn't we proceed without the GAC? It's not that we don't want > their participation, we do. But this is a joint effort and no one AC or > SO should try to control what's discussed, or be allowed to. > > I agree that there is no point in spending time discussing the demand > issue. I don't particularly like what Stephane is suggesting either > (with all due respect). It seems a bit self-serving and not of much > interest to the broader community, especially with all the other > important issues that could be discussed. > > Considering what's been suggested so far, I would prefer Kristina's > suggestion - malicious conduct. But my suggestion is that the topic be > Accountability. The Board has posted suggestions that I think fall > short, and based on comments submitted regarding IIC and the NOI on the > JPA I believe many if not most of the community believe they fall short > regardless of where they are on whether or not the JPA should be > extended. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting > From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 4:49 am > To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Avri, Chuck, > > Agree with the both of you that this is not a particular useful topic to > have at the ACSO meeting as it will just be a slugging match between the > gTLD pros and cons. > > I don't see who would be able to give factual information on consumer > demand > for new gTLDs, so it would just be everyone voicing their opinion. > That's > exactly what has been happening for the last couple of years anyway so > in > what way would such a session be productive? > > Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our > topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions > they > were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any > idea > why the apparent change of attitude? > > As for possible topic choices, this session being an opportunity for a > get-together between the various committees and organisations that make > up > ICANN and that ensure that ICANN can actually function, I would think it > would be more useful to have folks discuss ways to improve the ICANN, > ACs > and SOs processes. > > As these are brainstorming sessions, I think we can be quite daring in > our > choices of topics. > > How about something like: "with volunteer burnout becoming a pressing > problem, should ICANN look into remuneration possibilities for AC and SO > council and excom members?" > > I'm sure most people would be against this (I certainly am), but it > would > give people an opportunity to explain why and what their take on being > involved in the ICANN process is. > > Just an idea... > > Stéphane > > > Le 02/09/09 00:21, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit : > >> >> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|