RE: [council] Thoughts on the GAC advice
I guess I disagree. If we use "participation" instead of their "advice", I think that we are on safe ground. The GAC gave us guidelines for the new gTLD policy. We did not always follow them, and some of those were the ones that they later raised with the Board. If they had truly "participated" instead of each of us throwing documents over the wall, we would have been far better off.
Alan At 23/10/2011 10:10 AM, Mason Cole wrote:
Here's my first contribution -- hopefully it's actually helpful.I wouldn't necessarily say that we welcome participation -- registrars' experience is their expectations for "participation" means more than what we mean by it. I would say we welcome their input into the GNSO's policy development process.---------- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Sun 10/23/2011 6:57 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Thoughts on the GAC adviceI think if you preface it by saying "it is the GNSO Council's general opinion" you are fine (as Kristina's has done with respect to her questions to the Board).Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message-----From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wendy SeltzerSent: Sunday, 23 October 2011 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Thoughts on the GAC advice Since Adobe keeps crashing on me, here's what I've been trying to type into its chat. We welcome the GAC's participation in the GNSO discussion and Policy Development Process. We will take comments into account, and we hope likewise that the GAC will find participating in Council discussions a helpful alternative to giving Advice to the Board as well as offering a preview of the Board's potential responses to that Advice. --Wendy