Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I endorse what Bill suggested about ICANN and IG in general regarding the
relations with ITU etc .

Regards

Rafik


2010/5/25 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>