Re: [council] Topics for our Singapore meetings

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

In English please?

Stéphane



Le 9 juin 2011 à 17:05, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

> 
> Agree!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:00:02 
> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; William 
> Drake<william.drake@xxxxxx>
> Cc: GNSO Council<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] Topics for our Singapore meetings
> 
> 
> I'd like to talk with the Board about an anti-revolving door policy. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 7:52 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Topics for our Singapore meetings
> 
> 
> Thanks Bill.
> 
> Some good suggestions for the meeting with the Board. Glen, could you please 
> collate these suggestions so that we are ready to send them to the various 
> groups asap?
> 
> I have a couple more suggestions for the ccNSO meeting.
> 
> I have spoken at length with Leslie and we have a common desire to see the 
> two SOs work closer together on topics that are of common interests. The 
> budget topic is one I have already mentioned here. Leslie also told me that 
> the ccNSO is introducing a work plan to try and streamline its work, and I 
> think it would be of interest to us to learn more about what they are doing 
> there.
> 
> CWGs is also of common interests, and there the ccNSO is interested in 
> hearing from us on what our thoughts are.
> 
> I think we can expect a very productive meeting with the ccNSO in Singapore 
> and I'm very much looking forward to it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 9 juin 2011 à 09:01, William Drake a écrit :
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
>