Re: [council] Topics for our Singapore meetings

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

I'd never heard of the expression so forgive my ignorance.

Now that it has been kindly explained to me (thanks Tim ;) ), I think it's a 
great topic for our discussions with the Board.

Glen, could you please add this to the list you are putting together? Please 
also send me an update of that list so I know where we are on this.

Thanks very much.

Stéphane



Le 9 juin 2011 à 17:00, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> 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
> 
>