Re: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report

[Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think it would be a good idea to have someone reliable and knowledge 
to report back and the ex councilor idea seems also a good one. I second 
to put this proposal for discussion at the weekend in Singapore.
Klaus

  On 12/11/2013 6:03 PM, John Berard wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
> > <mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >     <mailto: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