<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] FW: Notes for tomorrow's meetings
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] FW: Notes for tomorrow's meetings
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 02:55:36 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-reply-to: <4437BBBC-EC2F-4574-A40E-927A1F49E89A@5x5com.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac4yrN7BcTxtpJy6Q6O3U52ZNU0ypw==
- Thread-topic: Notes for tomorrow's meetings
- User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.120402
On 06/04/13 17:43, "Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Meeting with Fadi:
>
>- His ongoing confidence in new gTLD execution
>- IDN variants
>- Specificity in roll-out timeline
>
>
>
>GAC
>- Understands/supports multistakeholder model. Doesn't necessarily do
>well inside that model. Need to be creative about how we engage them.
>- Would be useful to understand what GAC issues are. Would be helpful to
>provide them with forward look on council activity so they're alerted in
>advance and can plan.
>- Get direct input from GAC on issues they're interested in.
>- Perhaps assign ICANN staff person as liaison between GAC-GNSO.
>- Maybe provide GAC with instruction on opportunities and windows for
>input. Mistake to involve them in WGs.
>- Make GAC a resource. WGs should try to identify issues that may be of
>interest to the GAC and give them a chance to contribute.
>- Realize that governments are meeting and talking to other governments.
>Their interest is showing capitals they are effective over ICANN. Flaw
>in ICANN structure. Going to have to hit them over the head with
>realities of interaction problems.
>- Issue of full council's relationship with GAC vs. individual members'
>various relationships.
>- Establish mutual GNSO-GAC liaisons; one from each house.
>
>Board and CEO
>- Have free-flow session without a giant agenda. Themes vs. individual
>issues.
>- Role and function of GNSO council in multi-stakeholder model (e.g.,
>board approaches council for policy advice, timelines too short... =
>ignoring process)
>- Intentional bypassing of bottom-up process
>- Policy input vs. policy advice
>- Emerging trends we want to reflect to the board
>- Council restructure called for the board to accept broader public
>comment from those impacted by policy; most input the board receives is
>from finite population of the GNSO.
>- Public interest at ICANN
>- Engagement and outreach, new constituencies
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPad
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|