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

[Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's the core dilemma:

Can DNS market participants deliver the public interest outcomes that ICANN has 
signed up for??

And on the other side, can geographically constrained governments define and 
deliver public interest outcomes in a global marketplace?

And what to make of market based regulation in light of the GFC???

Perhaps best left for a chat over a Singapore Sling!!

Rosemary

Sent from my iPhone

On 13/06/2011, at 9:54 PM, "William Drake" 
<william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>> wrote:

Hi Stéphane

Two small friendly quibbles.

On Jun 13, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

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

And I would argue that irrespective of how the GAC's influence to date appears 
from the perspective of our sandbox, a) the governments they represent have a 
lot of cards to play if they think push has come to shove, and b) there's one 
government that's already proven not to be shy about getting into the game.

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.

We don't?  Under the AoC "ICANN" has that responsibility, not the GAC alone.  
Are we not ICANN?

Cheers,

Bill




Le 13 juin 2011 à 02:40, 
<<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 
<<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 5:00 pm
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
<<http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>;,
 William
Drake 
<<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>>
Cc: GNSO Council 
<<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[<mailto: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 : 
<<mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>>
Date : 10 juin 2011 23:24:20 HAEC
À : 
<<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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:<http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx/>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<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, 
<<mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>>
 
<<mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto: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