Re: [council] Comments on the appointment of a GNSO Council - "Reverse Liaison " to the GAC

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I fully agree to John’s comments.

As to the role of the liaison I expect she/he having to be more or less passive 
and reactive. I don’t expect the GAC allowing to actively participating in 
discussions. This may be different to liaisons at the GNSO (e.g. Alan as ALAC 
liaison) but should definitely discussed between Heather and yourself, Jonathan.

I agree to the one year term as the liaison needs to keep updated with the 
latest PDP developments.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Jonathan Robinson 
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:20 PM
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: [council] Comments on the appointment of a GNSO Council - "Reverse 
Liaison " to the GAC

Thanks John,

 

That moves it along and as far as I can see is consistent with what I suggested.

 

One other point we need to consider is selection.  Right now, we have Zahid as 
a volunteer which is great.

There may be others depending on the criteria and, if so, will need to figure 
out how to decide.

 

In any event, even if we only have one volunteer / candidate who meets the 
criteria, we’ll probably need a method for the Council to ratify that 
individual.

 

Jonathan

 

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 23 September 2013 17:27
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Comments on the appointment of a GNSO Council - "Reverse 
Liaison " to the GAC

 

Jonathan,

 

I am glad we are trying to put a frame around this idea.  As you know, I 
suggested such an approach for our liaison to the ccNSO Council as their 
meetings overlap with ours making it hard for a sitting councilor to fully 
participate.  That same is true with the GAC and I support nominating someone 
with a just-ended seat on the Council.

 

I have used the structure of your inquiry email to offer my comments:

 

  What do we mean by Reverse Liaison? 

  ·         The by-laws may allow for a liaison between groups, as it does for 
the GAC with the GNSO Council, but practicalities may intervene.  That is the 
case with the GAC as no single member can speak for the full advisory 
committee.  As they have not filled the liaison seat, we are proposing a 
reverse liaison so that we can still benefit from a fuller knowledge of their 
actions and discussion as well as have a trusted representative who can 
participate in their discussions.  It should be someone who, as you say, is 
able to effectively and accurately represent the current status of all aspects 
of current GNSO policy work.

  What qualifications? 

  It is required that they be familiar with GNSO current policy work and the 
policy development process.  That's shy a GNSO Councilor just ending his or her 
term makes the most sense.

  What does the Council expect

  As it would be impossible to be in two places at the same time, there should 
be no requirement that this person attend GNSO Council meetings, but, as with 
ICANN staff that are called to participate when the Council agenda touches 
their area of coverage, it would be expected for the liaison to be available to 
brief the Council as needed.  Certainly, regular written reports to GNSO 
Council make sense. 

  What does the GAC expect? 

  This is a matter for you (Jonathan) to discuss with the head of the GAC.  I 
wonder if they would be OK with the particulars above. 

  Other practical issues? 

  ·         The reverse liaison would need to be funded to attend the three 
international meetings and any other intercessional held by the GAC (assuming 
it is on-board).  The term ought to be one year with a new councilor whose term 
is just ending filling the spot each time.

  My two cents, 

  Berard