SV: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan and all,
 
1. I support verry much Thomas comment. Yes to both meetings but under the 
condition that they are well prepared by a concrete and agreed agenda of issues 
which need discussion, clarification or action. 
 
2. For the meetimng with the ccTLD my question would be how cc`s see in 
particular the GEO-TLDs (regions, cities). I would be interested also in the 
argument wether the involved "public authorities" city councils, regional 
administrations) will have a say in GEO-TLD policies (as thez have in the GAC 
ccTLD Redelegation Principles Document) and whether this will lead to 
local/national competition (eventually under different legal regimes).
 
3. For the GAC meeting: This is a good test for the seriosness of GACs 
readiness to become "early engaged" in a PDP (here in particular the IG= etc. 
story).
 
Thanks
 
wolfgang
   

________________________________

Fra: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx på vegne af Thomas Rickert
Sendt: ma 11-02-2013 15:01
Til: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Emne: Re: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO


Jonathan, all, 
while I agree with most of what has been said by fellow Councillors in response 
to your request, I have a general question: 

Is it just us needing to come up with what John calls (rightfully) a compelling 
agenda or isn't the "burden" on both parties?


ad 1 and 2:
As far as the ccNSO is concerned, we already had sessions in the past talking 
about the impact of new gTLDs, but they were quite superficial. While I could 
not be in favor of repeating statements made before, I guess that a well 
prepared discussion would be meaningful. Whois (which is closely linked to 
John's point on the EU data protection laws) might also be a topic of mutual 
interest. 

In my view such sessions would need to be carefully prepared - imho best done 
by reps from both parties taking care of that. I would volunteer to be part of 
that. In the absence of a good preparation, we might better not put these 
points on the agenda.

ad 3 and 4:
I definitely support an initiative to meet with the GAC.

As chair of the IOC-RCRC-IGO-INGO PDP WG I would very much welcome the 
opportunity to discuss this very topic. You will recall that this PDP was 
tagged a case study by both the Board and the GAC and as a consequence we 
should consider being an active part in making this case study successful. Our 
leadership (you or one of the vice chairs :-)) might wish to reach out to both 
the GAC and the Board to find out what their plan was with the case study? Was 
the idea to just observe and evaluate jointly or separately after it is over? 
Was the idea to be more active by engaging in the process at some stage or to 
have interim assessments? If so, on the basis of what information? I can tell 
you that the level of complexity of this project is challenging and thus there 
is a lot that could be presented and discussed. 

I would be more than happy to contribute to this, but I would need to 
understand better what the expectations are. Maybe we could even invite the 
Board (or reps) to such discussion. If such session was well prepared, I think 
it would be a good initiative to help the various groups better understand the 
approaches, ongoing work, limitations and chances of what the GNSO is going.  

Thanks,
Thomas



Am 05.02.2013 um 23:04 schrieb Jonathan Robinson 
<jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>:


        All,
         
        Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings 
with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings.
        These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically 
discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions.
         
        In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a 
variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily 
adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa
        In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in 
Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early.

        The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like 
to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet.
        I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some 
topics at least if we are to meet with them.
         
        Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and 
feel that it is important to us to do so.
         
        Therefore the following questions arise:
         
        1.       Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing?
        2.       If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or 
issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
         
        3.       Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing?
        4.       If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or 
issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
         
        I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms 
of his planning for the Beijing meeting.
         
        Thank-you.
         
         
        Jonathan
         
         
         
        Jonathan Robinson
        Chair
        ICANN GNSO Council
         
        jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
        skype: jonathan.m.r