Re: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report

[John Berard <johnberard@xxxxxxx>]

The idea to fund a ccNSO liaison from among the GNSO Councillors leaving their 
seat has been floated but little discussed.  Perhaps we ought to put it on the 
weekend agenda for Singapore

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to 
> provide it to us.
> 
> I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison 
> person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run 
> at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how 
> to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active 
> in GNSO PDPs. 
> 
> I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO 
> and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works?
> 
> That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed 
> about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with 
> your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community 
> working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable!
> 
> Maria
> 
> 
>> On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > 4.  As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already 
>> > suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three 
>> > international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill 
>> > the role.  This brings up a question of funding.  I think the position 
>> > should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached.  I am 
>> > just making this up as I go along.
>> 
>>         Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue 
>> with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they 
>> consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty 
>> much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant 
>> in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and 
>> it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the 
>> origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are 
>> outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend 
>> physical meetings is essential for the role.
>> 
>>         Cheers
>> 
>>                 David
>