Re: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the helpful summary, Chuck.
 
FWIW (sorry for jumping in late - I took some family time off (yes,
complete with email withdrawal symptoms!!!!) this past week and am
catching up) here are my brief thoughts:
 
1. I support the first 3 topics listed for the GAC/GNSO meeting (esp.
topics 1 (& 2 (DAG v4 & AoC);
 
2. I support topics 3 & 4 (i.e. Internet governance & DAG v4) for the
Board dinner; and
 
3. I support DNS-CERT as the main topic for the ccNSO meeting.
 
On the relevance/usefulness of having dinner with the Board, I pretty
much agree with much of what others have said. Specifically, I think
it's useful (esp. for newer Councillors) to have an occasion to interact
with the Board and senior ICANN staff OTHER than around a conference
table; I also agree with Bruce, Tim and others that a more mixed
approach (i.e. a structured discussion followed by eating;
alternatively, as Chuck suggested, different topics at different tables
tailored to those seated there) may help focus the discussions while
allowing for more relaxed interaction to follow.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 


From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/27/2010 5:46 PM
Subject: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

<<Joint GNSO Meeting Agenda Topics for Brussels.docx>> <<Survey for
Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>> 
The first attachment above is a summary I created of the suggested
topics, names of Councilors who expressed support or opposition for them
and excerpts of Councilor comments for the three Council joint meetings
scheduled for Brussels.  I tried to be thorough and complete in creating
this but wouldn’t be surprised if I missed some or incorrectly showed
support.  Please communicate any errors you find.
My next step recommendations for each meeting are as follows.
GAC/GNSO meeting 
Recognizing that it will be very unlikely that we can cover all three
topics in one hour, I suggest that I send a message to Janis asking him
to prioritize the following three topics from his point of view:
·       DAG 4, including morality and public order
·       AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews
·       Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
Once we get a response from Janis, we solicit Council volunteers to
prepare 1-2 minute statements on one or more of the topics that would be
communicated as individual or SG/Constituency statements in the meeting.
 Statements may include questions for the GAC.
Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting
We develop a survey that Bruce Tonkin may use to solicit individual
Board preferences regarding topics they would like to discuss with
Councilors in Brussels, noting 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices.  I took a first
stab at a survey that is contained in the second attachment to this
message.
Once we get the feedback from Bruce, we will try to assign seating by
topic(s) at each table.
ccNSO/GNSO meeting
I will send a message to Chris Disspain saying that the GNSO Council
supports the topic of the DNS-CERT be the main topic of discussion in
the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in Brussels with the understanding that the
ccNSO may add other topics if desired and that I also proposed a small
list of questions in that regard to facilitate discussion.  For
starters, I suggest the following questions:
1.      What are the biggest concerns of ICANN DNS-CERT activities to
date?
a.      ccNSO participants
b.      GNSO participants
2.      How could the ICANN-DNS CERT activities be improved going
forward?
a.      ccNSO participants
b.      GNSO participants
3.      In what ways could the ccNSO and GNSO work together in this
area?
a.      ccNSO participants
b.      GNSO participants
Please feel free to provide feedback on any of the above not later than
one week from today, Thursday, 3 June.  Using that feedback I will take
the next steps as indicated above or as modified per the feedback
received.
Thanks, Chuck


Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Paternership