Re: [council] Informal conversation

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

Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, 
but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison!

An interesting suggestion…

Stéphane



Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC 
> liaisons? 
> 
> Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one 
> or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to 
> appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
> 
> Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with 
> the GAC.
> 
> I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's 
> apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The 
> answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to 
> participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first 
> and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of 
> the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
> 
> The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put 
> something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for 
> the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no 
> substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our 
> discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and 
> more proactive are spot on.
> 
> With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft 
> letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have 
> done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during 
> the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
> 
> Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the 
> announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO 
> mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific 
> issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is 
> perhaps worth thinking about.
> 
> The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to 
> improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something 
> I was told, it is my own conclusion).
> 
> Hope this is helpful.
> 
> Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
> 
> Stéphane
>