RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

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

Wolf,

Do you suggesting the following two topics for the Board/Council dinner as well 
as the GAC/GNSO meeting?

1.      DAG 4, including morality and public order 
2.      AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:59 AM
> To: jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Rita.Rodin@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: AW: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> I'm personally not in favour of discussing those general "political"
> issues in meetings where we as GNSO councillors are officially involved
> like bourd/council dinner or GAC/council meeting. Our main focus should
> be policy rather than politics development.
> 
> So I think DAG4 and AOC offer enough substance to discuss on
> board/council level.
> 
> Regarding the ccNSO/GNSO meeting I support to discuss the DNS-
> CERT/security issue with the main target to highlight and optimize the
> working structure.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Im Auftrag von Jaime Plug In
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 20:56
> An: 'William Drake'; 'Terry L Davis, P.E.'
> Cc: '"'Stéphane Van Gelder'"'; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita';
> Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: RES: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> 
> 
> I think the issue of the roles of ICANN versus IGF, ITU or other UN
> bodies
> in the Internet governance is the single most important discussion item
> both
> with the Board (in the informal or semi-formal meeting) and with GAC
> (in the
> formal meeting).
> 
> For the rest, I endorse Bill's view of focusing in the first two issues
> of
> Chuck's original list:
> 
> *       DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively
> discussion)
> *       AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews
> 
> Jaime Wagner
> 
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Em
> nome de William Drake
> Enviada em: sábado, 22 de maio de 2010 11:11
> Para: Terry L Davis, P.E.
> Cc: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita';
> Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Assunto: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> 
> 
> Hi Terry,
> 
> I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about
> what's
> going on in the larger international political environment. That
> includes
> the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in
> Guadalajara,
> for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly
> impact
> ICANN and its nexus.  But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some
> of
> the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD
> meeting
> (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments).  While I sat with
> Rod
> at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear
> take on
> how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these
> developments.  And while we tried to start a conversation along these
> lines
> at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available
> were
> quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments,
> rather
> than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the
> external debate on ICANN a!
>  nd ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks...
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
> 
> >
> > Stephane
> >
> > Likewise!  And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions
> > either.
> >
> > What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most
> folks
> > would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions.
> I
> > suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for
> the
> > Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU
> initiatives.
> >
> > Take care
> > Terry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On
> > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM
> > To: Rodin Johnston, Rita
> > Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> >
> >
> > Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the
> > dinners.
> >
> > Thanks Rita.
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> > Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit :
> >
> >> Stephane and all -
> >>
> >> I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of
> the
> > board does as well.  I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce
> and I
> > are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of
> > discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions
> was
> > substituted. Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010
> >> Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> >>
> >>
> >> We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major
> > decision-making bodies.
> >>
> >> I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting
> the
> > people from each body talking to each other.
> >>
> >> Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps
> make
> > organisations work.
> >>
> >> Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often
> easier
> > for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates
> into
> > real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work
> sessions.
> >>
> >> As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended
> helped
> take
> > away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council
> and
> > working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board
> members, I
> > found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday
> > problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten
> that in
> a
> > more formal setting.
> >>
> >> I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil
> the
> > internal workings of the organisation.
> >>
> >> Stéphane
> >>
> >> Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>