Re: [council] Informal conversation

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stéphane,
thanks for having dealt with this already! 

I think that the suggestion that we send someone is most interesting and we 
should make a decision whether or not to grab this opportunity to open up an 
additional communication chanel in a timely fashion given the current difficult 
situation. I would very much welcome if we accepted the offer.

Thomas
=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 27.10.2011 um 16:48 schrieb 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
>> 
> 
>