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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My apologies.

I was a little confused by the email chains.

I realise we have two meetings;

- GAC/ Council
- Board/ Council

I think my comments are appropriate for both.

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Kinderis 
Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2011 7:14 PM
To: 'Rosette, Kristina'; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] TOPICS - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday 
March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm

I agree with Kristina here.

However, I stress we should be very careful with our approach.

I know the Board and staff have worked very hard (well... harder) to improve 
relations with the GAC. We do not want to undo any of that good work. The 
relationship is fragile enough without GNSO Councillors hitting them over the 
head with the same hammer. That is not our role not our task.

If we frame the conversation in the manner that Kristina suggests I think we 
will be fine. I, for one, would welcome a deeper understanding of their 
relationship with the GNSO and their understanding of what we go and how we can 
improve it.

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2011 8:54 AM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [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 
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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>