ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF

  • To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:24:04 -0700
  • Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.3.05

<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; 
font-size:10pt;"><div>None of them should be there in an official capacity 
unless they have their SO/AC approval. Otherwise, they are there "because" of 
their position but not in an official capacity. <BR></div>
<div>If this meeting happens as described (ICANN supported and funded), with or 
without the GNSO, it should be recorded and/or transcribed verbatim.</div>
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote 
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: 
[council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF<BR>From: 
Stéphane_Van_Gelder &lt;<a 
 Wed, January 19, 2011 11:10 am<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" &lt;<a 
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<BR>Cc: "GNSO Council" 
 Tim, Wendy, Jeff for your comments.<BR><BR>Just a few 
clarifications.<BR><BR>This is being proposed by Rod. It is not the Chairs 
proposing.<BR><BR>I'm sure there will be extra costs involved. Two extra days 
are bound to cost something.<BR><BR>Also, I think it is unrealistic to imagine 
that the Chairs would be there solely in their own capacity. They are being 
invited as Chairs of their respective SOs and ACs in the first place, after 
all. But I agree they certainly should not be carrying any group message when 
they go.<BR><BR>Plus we should bear in mind that this meeting will probably 
happen even if the GNSO is against it. So do we want to be the only ones not 
going?<BR><BR>Anyway, I am glad this discussion is starting. I hope Staff can 
address the valid points you are all making. In the meantime, the message I am 
getting is that the Council does not want me to take 
part.<BR><BR>Stéphane<BR><BR>Le 19 janv. 2011 à 17:49, Tim Ruiz a écrit 
:<BR><BR>&gt; Two days for an informal meet and greet? There must be some 
other<BR>&gt; agenda. And what does negligible mean? <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; IMHO, if 
the Chairs want to make a date and show up early to chat, etc.<BR>&gt; that's 
fine with me as long as 1) there is no additional cost to ICANN,<BR>&gt; 
meaning ZERO, and 2) it is understood that they are there in their own<BR>&gt; 
capacity and not acting on behalf of their SO/AC.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Tim 
<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; -------- Original Message --------<BR>&gt; Subject: [council] 
SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF<BR>&gt; From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
 Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 9:50 am<BR>&gt; To: GNSO Council &lt;<a 
<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Councillors,<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; FYI, Rod is inviting the SO and 
AC Chairs to a 2-day meeting prior to<BR>&gt; the ICANN SF meeting. The idea is 
to have informal discussions and to<BR>&gt; help the SO and AC Chairs get to 
know each other better.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I have not agreed to going yet, but 
have asked what the cost of the<BR>&gt; meeting would be, which part of the 
ICANN meeting this would come from,<BR>&gt; whether the meeting would be 
official?<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I am told the additional costs would be negligible 
and part of the ICANN<BR>&gt; meeting budget.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; If anyone is 
opposed to me going, please say so.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Thanks,<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; 
Stéphane<BR>&gt; <BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>