Re: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore

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

I would argue that the GAC only appear more important than everyone else if 
everyone else lets them.

And to be honest, in my conversations with GAC members, I have never gotten the 
feeling from them that they are setting themselves up to be more important than 
the rest of us. They just feel that they have a responsibility that we don't: 
the public interest.

Stéphane



Le 13 juin 2011 à 02:40, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> On paper, I think Adrian has it right when he says, of the GAC, "They are no 
> more important than any other" stake holder group, but the practice as 
> revealed in the new gTLD negotiations seem to suggest otherwise. 
> 
> Is the GAC's inability to find a friendly time to meet with the Council 
> (more) evidence of ICANN developing a decision-making process alternative to 
> the official one?
> 
> Or it could be that governments, on their own, are taking on a "first among 
> equals" point-of-view.
> 
> All this makes a joint session desirable, but not worth meeting at midnight 
> at a local McDonalds.
> 
> Berard  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
> From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 5:00 pm
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;, William
> Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>
> Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I find it ironic that the GAC have complained about not having their voice 
> heard and now, when everyone is bending over backwards to accommodate them 
> they choose not to see the GNSO Council – perhaps we are not important enough.
>  
> I say let them be and let them know that we hope to be able to accommodate 
> them in Senegal but we will have to confirm our schedule.
>  
> Let’s remember they are but one body that feeds into this multi-stakeholder 
> community. They are no more important than any other...
>  
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:06 PM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
>  
> Yup, that's the general gist of what I said to Heather as well, including the 
> fact that Thursday sounded so difficult to me for the Council to accommodate 
> that I didn't think it would work.
>  
> Happy to insist on some face time with the GAC if the Council feels it wants 
> to push the issue. But in the end, if they feel overstreched and would like 
> to give the GNSO a miss this time around, it may be difficult to force them 
> to see us.
>  
> Stéphane
>  
>  
>  
> Le 12 juin 2011 à 12:47, William Drake a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hi from Singapore
>  
> Hot and humid here, you've been warned…
>  
> I have to admit I'm puzzled that GAC has time to meet with the Board, ALAC, 
> ccNSO, registrars, SSAC, & review teams but none to meet with the Council.  
> Meanwhile dangling in the wind are some of the ideas floated in SF (sorry, 
> SV) such as having a joint team to explore options for including them 
> earlier/better in GNSO work, establishing liaisons with SGs, etc.  I'd have 
> thought these and other ideas merited follow up.  So if the most we can get 
> is an informal discussion, I'd be in favor of it.  But Thursday looks lousy, 
> with public participation,  IGF & JAS (at the same time, a huge pity for some 
> of us), Council round up and the forum; the only open slots I see would be 
> breakfast meeting (horrid) or the lunch break (for those who can skip Getting 
> Ready).
>  
> Thoughts?
>  
> BIll
>  
> On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> 
> Councillors,
>  
> As I mentioned before, the GAC has requested that we not hold our usual 
> meeting with them in Singapore. I have continued to discuss this with 
> Heather, and she has sent me the following suggestion:
>  
> Hi Stéphane,
> 
> I do understand.  The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched 
> for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities.  There 
> also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT 
> recommendations.  It goes on and on.
> 
> Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday?  I'm 
> not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know  a few of us have a 
> lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
> 
> Heather  
>  
> I don't think an informal meeting is really what we want. Plus, I think at 
> this late stage it would be hard to organise. What does the Council think?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Stéphane
>  
>  
>  
> Début du message réexpédié :
> 
> 
> De : <Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>
> Date : 10 juin 2011 23:24:20 HAEC
> À : <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Objet : RE: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
>  
> Hi Stéphane,
> 
> I do understand.  The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched 
> for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities.  There 
> also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT 
> recommendations.  It goes on and on.
> 
> Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday?  I'm 
> not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know  a few of us have a 
> lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
> 
> Heather   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:03 PM
> To: Dryden, Heather: SPS
> Subject: Re: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
> 
> Hi Heather,
> 
> Thanks for your email.
> 
> I would rather not postpone our Singapore meeting with the GAC obviously, 
> because I know the GNSO considers those meetings as very valuable.
> 
> However I also understand that the GAC's Singapore schedule is probably so 
> hectic you need to find time somewhere.
> 
> Would it be helpful to have an informal discussion between the GAC and GNSO 
> Chairs and VCs in Singapore?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 6 juin 2011 à 23:25, <Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx> <Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx> a 
> écrit :
> 
> 
> Dear Stéphane,
>  
> I believe that we currently have 11 - 12.30 on the Wednesday scheduled for a 
> GNSO/GAC meeting in Singapore.  I would like to propose that we postpone the 
> meeting until Senegal and perhaps schedule a longer meeting of 2 or 3 hours 
> to permit a more in-depth discussion of how the GAC and the GNSO respectively 
> conduct their work.  This would allow the GAC to better prepare for a 
> discussion of working methods (for example, how the GAC arrives at consensus 
> views, what we consider to be consensus etc.).  This would also provide the 
> GNSO with the opportunity to describe/explain how you do what you do, the 
> implications of the new structure and  how the GNSO approaches policy 
> development.
>  
> In Singapore, the GAC will be looking at ways to organize its work, including 
> how it works with other parts of the community and prepares for meetings.  I 
> will seek GAC representatives to come forward and lead on the GNSO for the 
> GAC.  Either way, I would be happy to meet with you in Singapore (and 
> hopefully the GAC vice-chairs could join if GAC volunteers have not yet been 
> identified) to share some thoughts.  
>  
> I would like to move to greater preparation for all the GAC face-to-face 
> meetings (including times when the GAC is meeting by itself), with the 
> support of the new GAC secretariat, so that discussions can be more focused 
> when we do meet in person.          
>  
> Do let me know what your thoughts are...
>  
> Many thanks and see you soon,
> Heather
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>