RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am accumulating the various ideas and comments and will send a summary
to the Council list that will helpfully facilitate discussion with SGs
and Constituencies as well as among the Council members.

 

Chuck

 

From: rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis; Bruce
Tonkin; GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

 

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

Rosemary

Sent from my BlackBerry(r) from Optus

________________________________

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Sender: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 01:00:27 +1000

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
>
>