RE: [council] Prague - please read!

["Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Stéphane,

I have taken the liberty of adding a few proposed items below for everyone’s 
consideration.

Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP


From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: May 12, 2012 6:53:07 AM EDT
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read!
Thanks to Thomas for picking up the discussion and to others for pursuing it. 
These proposals are great. I have summarized them in the list below.

Board
How could ICANN's communication be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and 
the TAS Glitch?
What else is the Board 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?
Regarding the newly-estabilshed New gTLD Committee and how does it function. 
How can GNSO help / liaise with this committee and collaborate?
How can the GNSO assist ICANN in streamlining the process for negotiating and 
amending +2,000 new gTLD Registry Agreements?  To identify minor tweaks that 
all applicants want, or specific amendments that .brand applicants need?  Can 
the GNSO assist ICANN in identifying problematic legal issues raised by certain 
provisions of the ICANN new gTLD Agreement?
Has the Board considered and developed an opinion on the proposal to place 
responsibility for the contractual compliance department under the CEO, rather 
than the legal department?

GAC
In what areas might the GAC wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare 
/ plan resources?
How can the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public 
bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse?
Discuss the GAC 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.
How can the GAC and GNSO can improve their joint working relationship? Are our 
processes for joint engagement on areas of mutual interest adequate – can they 
be improved? A particular focus on efficiency and speed would be useful. For 
example, would an informal joint standing committee of some kind be helpful?


ccNSO
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.
Discussion on how we can engage around areas of mutual interest such as 
emerging issues in the development of policies for law enforcement requests.

Others, please help continue to build this list, especially with regards to our 
interaction with the ccNSO.

All, please also provide suggestions on what weekend sessions you'd like to see.

I suggest we let the above lists build up a little more and then move into a 
discussion of which topics we actually all feel comfortable with and want to 
forward to the respective groups.

Thanks again.

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

Le 12 mai 2012 à 05:03, Joy Liddicoat a écrit :


Thanks for the request Stephane,
Suggested topic for discussion with the GAC:
how the GAC and GNSO can improve their joint working relationship? Are our
processes for joint engagement on areas of mutual interest adequate - can
they be improved? A particular focus on efficiency and speed would be
useful. For example, would an informal joint standing committee of some kind
be helpful? Such an informal group could be a useful forum for initial
discussion of the kinds of questions Thomas raised, providing some support
for more formal joint discussions - rather than being issue or subject
dependent. This could also be a topic for our own working session.
For the ccNSO - discussion on how we can engage around areas of mutual
interest such as emerging issues in the development of policies for law
enforcement requests
these are my own thoughts, and I have also passed the request on to NSCG
members asking for a prompt response.
Kind regards

Joy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
 On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, 11 May 2012 8:06 p.m.
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Prague - please read!


Councillors,

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