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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the message is a little bit different and I am not sure about the 
comment "this meeting will happen anyway."  If the GNSO does not like the idea 
of this happening, then yes, you should not go as the Chair of the SO.  In 
addition, a message should be sent to Rod and the ICANN Board with the GNSO's 
view on these types of meeting and that some in the community do not believe 
this helps with accountability and transparency.

Its hard to justify having us all complain to the ICANN Board about a non-open 
and transparent GAC meeting on new TLDs, but in the same vein agreeing to a 
non-open and transparent SO/AC Chairs meeting with ICANN staff.


Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:10 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF


Thanks Tim, Wendy, Jeff for your comments.

Just a few clarifications.

This is being proposed by Rod. It is not the Chairs proposing.

I'm sure there will be extra costs involved. Two extra days are bound to cost 
something.

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.

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?

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.

Stéphane

Le 19 janv. 2011 à 17:49, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> Two days for an informal meet and greet? There must be some other
> agenda. And what does negligible mean? 
> 
> IMHO, if the Chairs want to make a date and show up early to chat, etc.
> that's fine with me as long as 1) there is no additional cost to ICANN,
> meaning ZERO, and 2) it is understood that they are there in their own
> capacity and not acting on behalf of their SO/AC.
> 
> 
> Tim  
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 9:50 am
> To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Councillors,
> 
> FYI, Rod is inviting the SO and AC Chairs to a 2-day meeting prior to
> the ICANN SF meeting. The idea is to have informal discussions and to
> help the SO and AC Chairs get to know each other better.
> 
> I have not agreed to going yet, but have asked what the cost of the
> meeting would be, which part of the ICANN meeting this would come from,
> whether the meeting would be official?
> 
> I am told the additional costs would be negligible and part of the ICANN
> meeting budget.
> 
> If anyone is opposed to me going, please say so.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
>