RE: [council] TOPICS - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
- To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] TOPICS - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:53:50 -0500
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-reply-to: <019DA583-E669-4CC1-857B-160AD5E36075@indom.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcvatIk+JDNFbsgnSbuEZEDPPu0ZMgAAOi8Q
- Thread-topic: [council] TOPICS - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
I thought we had until COB (which it's not yet for me) and had planned to take
advantage of it given that today is my first day back in the office after the
I would prefer that the second topic be broadened to discuss more generally how
the GNSO community can factor earlier into the policy development process GAC
advice to the Board. (Yes, I am aware that my suggestion presumes that it
should do so. I have no objection to a discussion of that as long as there is
some discussion of the "how" as well.) If that can be done differently,
perhaps there will be fewer inconsistencies - or at least greater clarity - in
the future. The current silo-ing does not seem to work very well, IMHO.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:37 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] TOPICS - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday
March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
As the deadline for communicating our topics to the Board is today, I have
asked Olga and Glen, who are looking after our agenda for SF, to forward the 2
"Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation: context of the Board resolution"
"The role of the GNSO community in addressing any new items that come out of
the GAC/BD discussions on new gTLDs. More specifically, to the extent that
there are any inconsistencies between the policy advice given by the GNSO and
what the ICANN Board agrees to with the GAC, how will those matters be handled?"
If there is consensus to consider other topics, I will forward them to the
Board an request that they may be treated as AOB towards the end of our session
Le 4 mars 2011 à 11:01, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
> Had not seen Olga's recap email before I sent mine just now so apologies for
> its redundant nature.
> On the topics, I think having at least 2 topics is best. This is our only
> session with the Board in SF following the recent reorg on Board interaction
> with the community, so I think we should try and make the most of it.
> As Bruce has offered to help with the Consumer Choice topic and as it has
> consistently raised questions from us on what it is exactly that the Board
> expected from us, how this resolution came into being without any priori
> consultation with us or anything, I think we should also go with that.
> So I would prefer Consumer choice and new TLDs as the 2 topics, if we only go
> for 2.
> Le 4 mars 2011 à 08:43, William Drake a écrit :
>> I think the experience over the past couple years with board, GAC et al
>> meetings has been that multi-topic agendas don't work well, so I agree with
>> Carlos that it'd be preferable to do one topic if possible.
>> I agree with Jeff that Brussels raised questions about the handling of
>> possible inconsistencies between GNSO positions (and community positions
>> more generally) and any Board-GAC compromises. After the meeting I chatted
>> with a couple boardies who were wondering aloud how should they loop back
>> through the community to make sure everyone's still on board, do we do a
>> public comment period, add time to the public forum, or what.Without wanting
>> to add too much complexity to the process or too tightly tie the board's
>> hands, one would think it'd be good to at least talk this through with them.
>> To me this is pressing and hefty enough to fill a meeting.
>> As to the others, while Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation merits
>> focused attention, one would think more prior discussion of this in Council
>> would be needed to make it a really productive discussion. It's sort of
>> amorphous now and SGs may have rather different perspectives that need some
>> initial converging. As to CWG, I've yet to hear a compelling argument that
>> there's really a big problem regarding Board perceptions of their outputs,
>> and in any event the Council's little group on this is just starting up, got
>> a listserv a couple days ago. So that too one would think could bake a
>> little more before we take it to them.
>> On Mar 4, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Olga Cavalli wrote:
>>> Dear Council Members,
>>> This is the list of topics proposed for the Board/GNSO meeting:
>>> - Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation: context of the Board
>>> - CWGs and how the Board views them
>>> - New TLDs. Role of the GNSO community in addressing items that come
>>> out of the GAC/BD discussions on new gTLDs
>>> Please let me know if I have forgotten something or if I have captured well
>>> your ideas.
>>> Best regards