Re: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> Please see the attached email message that I sent to the Council list.
> Note that I mentioned this in the 28 October Council meeting and
> forwarded Liz's paper shortly thereafter.  

My bad, didn't resonate 

> Because of the 15 November
> deadline for agendas and related documents for Cartagena meetings, we
> could not wait until the 18 November meeting.
> 
> In a subsequent email message I communicated that both Chris and Heather
> are supportive of the topic and forwarded Liz's paper to their groups.
> 
> Detailed agendas and questions are still to be developed. Your
> suggestions will be helpful in that regard.

Thanks.  They seem like rather different conversations, and the list of issues 
to consider on the procedural question dwarfs previous agendas for the hour.  
But if people are interested, splitting the time might spice things up a little…

Best

Bill



> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:23 AM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: GNSO Council List
>> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena
>> 
>> Hi Chuck,
>> 
>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 
>>> Bill,
>>> 
>>> Your suggestions fit nicely into the topic that has already been
>>> selected by all three groups (GNSO, GAC & ccNSO)
>> 
>> Thanks, I must have missed this conversation; happily, I'm not alone
> in
>> that.  When did the Council discuss this?
>> 
>>> based on the paper that
>> 
>>> Liz produced regarding what needs to be done in the future regarding
>>> community WGs.  It seems natural to me to talk about successes and
>>> failures of the Rec6 CWG and the JAS WG as we explore how we
>> facilitate
>>> CWGs going forward.
>> 
>> Ok, but I wasn't suggesting a discussion about the procedural aspects
>> of CWGs (although some time on that would be good too), but rather
>> about the substantive issues and proposals involved in these two
> cases.
>> 
>> Where's the topic specified, do we have a list of discussion questions
>> per previous?
>> 
>> Thanks much,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>>>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:37 AM
>>>> To: GNSO Council List
>>>> Subject: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> On tomorrow's call we are to discuss "6.2 Topic(s) for Joint
>> meetings
>>>> with the GAC & ccNSO"
>>>> 
>>>> We've just had two intensive and successful group collaborations on
>>>> questions of particular interest to the GAC, namely Rec. 6/former
>> MAPO
>>>> and JAS/applicant support.  Wouldn't it be helpful to hear GAC
>>>> perspectives and engage in some dialogue with them on a) the
> outputs
>>> of
>>>> these groups, and how well they speak to concerns GAC has raised in
>>> the
>>>> past, and b) how those outputs should be dealt with going forward?
>>>> Given all the efforts expended and the pressing need to settle this
>>>> stuff to the community's satisfaction, one would think this is the
>>> best
>>>> way we could use the time.  Unless of course we'd prefer to talk
>> about
>>>> categories :-)
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> Senior Associate
>>>> Centre for International Governance
>>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>> Development Studies
>>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>>> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
> 
> 
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: October 29, 2010 4:25:26 AM GMT+02:00
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC 
> working groups
> 
> 
> As I briefly mentioned in our meeting earlier today, a possible topic for 
> discussion with the GAC and ccNSO in our joint meetings with them in 
> Cartagena is the topic of procedures for joint SO/AC working groups or 
> community working groups.  As you can see by Liz's email below, I requested 
> that Staff prepare a paper listing some of the issues that might need to be 
> considered in that regard.  Please review this and share any comments you 
> have and provide any opinions you have about suggesting this topic  to the 
> GAC and ccNSO.  If there are any objections to suggesting this as a topic for 
> either joint meeting, please let me know by Wednesday of next week.  If there 
> are none, I will suggest the topic to Heather and Chris and send the attached 
> discussion document as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Liz and any other staff members who helped develop the discussion 
> paper.
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Liz Gasster
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:23 PM
> To: gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> On the last chairs call, Chuck suggested that it might be useful to encourage 
> discussion between the GNSO Council and the ccNSO and GAC (and ALAC...) about 
> the benefits and potential issues associated with cross-SO/AC working groups 
> and whether/how their role might be better defined in the future.  To 
> stimulate that discussion, we prepared the attached draft at Chuck's request. 
> 
> 
> 
> The questions are just suggestions, we have not yet engaged in any internal 
> consultation, and  we do think it will be important to consult with the 
> General Counsel's office to solicit their input and guidance.
> 
> 
> 
> Please let us know if this is what you had in mind, and if you would like 
> anything further.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Liz
> 
> <Cross SO AC policy discussion.docx>
>