Re: [council] Topics for our Singapore meetings

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

Hi

On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 
> All,
> 
> We are still missing suggestions for topics for our 3 main meetings with 
> other groups in Singapore. Those meetings are with the Board, the GAC and the 
> ccNSO.
> 
> As discussed in previous email threads on this list, so far only the Board 
> and ccNSO meetings look certain for Singapore.
> 
> To get the ball rolling, I would like to suggest some topics for those 2 
> meetings.
> 
> ccNSO
> - ICANN budget. The ccNSO has a working team looking at the ICANN budget and 
> I think it would be very useful for both SOs to share that experience. I have 
> discussed this with Lesley (ccNSO Chair) and she sees value in it as well. 
> The idea is not to start up the old discussion about ccTLD contributions, but 
> instead to benefit from the ccNSO's work on the proposed ICANN budget for the 
> coming FY. The issue being that we are all so swamped with documents and 
> reports that we have no time to look at this all-important budget. The 
> ccNSO's work team can help us identify the key issues.
> 
> - ccTLDs becoming registrars. This may not interest everyone and is just a 
> suggestion, but we might want to discuss what ccTLD operators plans are with 
> regards to possibly becoming gTLD registries, as some have already mentioned 
> an interest in running gTLDs as registries (mostly geo TLDs in their regions).

Both sound good to me.
> 
> 
> Board
> - CWGs. I think this is a discussion we need to continue to have with the 
> Board, if only to update them on the recent discussions we've had amongst 
> ourselves.
> 
> - GNSO/Board interact. This is changing, at the Board's initiative. We should 
> perhaps touch on how useful we've found our dinners and interaction with the 
> Board in the past.

How about GNSO/GAC/Board interactions?

Two other thoughts, which may or may not be shared here:  In light in 
particular of Larry Stickling's various speeches, including in SF, it could be 
interesting to hear how the Board views and plans to act on a) the AoC process 
& outputs to date, and the broader progress of transparency & accountability 
across the range of ICANN processes; and b) the AoC's repeatedly stated 
requirement that ICANN act in the public interest.  While there've been some 
preliminary discussions on such matters, the AoC is now almost two years old, 
so we ought to be able to have a more probing and structured discussion with 
the benefit of experience.

Best,

Bill