ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Prague - please read!

Hi, Thomas' list looks good (though I should say I've not consulted NCSG
colleagues and members so this is a somewhat personal view).
For the Board, I assume our concerns center on transparency as well as
effective communication. Do we want to ask them what else they are
considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of
ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the
budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on?
For the GAC, do we want to discuss their views on the IGO issue,
especially as the IOC has just submitted a Request for Reconsideration
of the Board's recent decision not to change the AGB?

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:

From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
CC:GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/11/2012 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read!
I would like to discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could
be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch.

For GAC I would like to discuss in what areas the GAC might wish to
co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources.
Also I would like to discuss with the GAC at a high level (if possible)
how the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the
public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting

With the ccNSO I guess it would make sense to pick up the discussion
what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and
structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k
new TLDs.

In response to your question no. 2, there should be some time reserved
for internal discussion in preparation of above subjects - should the
Council decide to pick up these ideas. 


Am 11.05.2012 um 10:05 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:


I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things
in preparation for our Prague week:

1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and
2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend.

As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under
greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff
have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR
agenda that people complained about there).

I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered
(or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) )
to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure
working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational
nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on
the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on.

So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas
for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other
groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of
Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have
greater meaning for the Council as a whole.

Thanks for your help in this endeavor.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law
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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>