Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

[rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Could we just identify a topic or two each and canvass among our SGs?

Rosemary
Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus

-----Original Message-----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 01:00:27 
To: Adrian Kinderis<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bruce 
Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

Please ignore my earlier question about what we would survey Adrian.
 The following answers my question.  Any volunteers to take a first crack
 at a survey that we can discuss on the list?
 
 Chuck
 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
 > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
 > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:38 AM
 > To: Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council
 > Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
 >
 >
 > Thanks Bruce. This is helpful.
 >
 > I like to see a way that we can move away from anecdotal opinions
 > towards firm requests from the Board members as to their want/ need to
 > meet with the GNSO. Is there a way that we could actually survey them
 > with a list of options and ensure we get the right mix of engagement?
 >
 > There is a danger that we are catering for the vocal majority.
 >
 > Thanks.
 >
 >
 > Adrian Kinderis
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
 > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
 > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 11:12 PM
 > To: GNSO Council
 > Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
 >
 >
 > Hello All,
 >
 >
 >
 > >>  I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is
 excellent.
 > To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for
 > interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them
 > disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel
 they
 > should go.
 >
 >
 > Well here are some issues that get raised:
 >
 > - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so
 > some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate
 > attention
 >
 > - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion
 > about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that
 > the Board will be making a decision on that week?
 >
 > - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be
 > endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus
 > support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy
 > matters.  If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO -
 > the
 > GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take
 > sides.
 >
 > There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not
 > aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials
 > provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the
 > particular issue.
 >
 >
 > Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work.  e.g A
 > period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in
 > advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the
 > documents.   An informal eating occasion can then follow that is
 > perhaps
 > optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding
 > of
 > the issues.    This structure used to work quite well when we were
 > doing
 > the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy
 > discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some
 > barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to
 > better results the following day.
 >
 > Regards,
 > Bruce Tonkin
 >
 >