Re: [council] TOPICS - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Olga, Glen, please widen the second topic to include Kristina's suggestion.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 4 mars 2011 à 22:53, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> 
> 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 GAC-Board meeting.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 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 topics below:
> 
> "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 with them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 4 mars 2011 à 08:43, William Drake a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>>> resolution
>>>> 
>>>> - 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
>>>> Olga
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>