Re: [council] Informal conversation

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, all,
I volunteer to participate in this group.

Best,
Thomas


Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:

> 
> Thanks Joy.  We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on 
> these issues.  I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several 
> times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have 
> declined our invitation.  Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to 
> work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after 
> approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC.  They 
> seem to prefer this course of action.
> 
> We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a 
> mailing list.  If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen 
> know.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM
> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation
> 
> 
> Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here.
> Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s)
> to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison
> point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a
> GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC
> working methods?
> A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point
> on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face
> workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on
> this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised
> and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two
> groups to consider?
> 
> Joy
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m.
> To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de