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

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 to all that.

Do we know if there are a couple of interested people on ccNSO and GAC to
discuss ideas for a draft agenda with? If we could get a quick ad hoc group
going, we could move on quite quickly.

Also - and apologies if I've missed anything on this up-thread - is there a
dedicated slot in the Beijing schedule for this session already?

Maria

On 11 February 2013 15:56, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>