RE: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

With regard to ‘a single individual to both GAC & ccNSO’, for in-person ICANN 
public meetings, the ccNSO meetings conflict with GAC meetings just as do the 
GNSO meetings.

Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:40 AM
To: 'John Berard'; 'Maria Farrell'
Cc: 'David Cake'; 'John Berard'; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report

Thanks John,

Two questions for you and the Council:


1.       Could such a position (liaison) be served by a single individual to 
both GAC & ccNSO?

2.       The GNSO groups seem to be generally organising to place 
representatives / liaisons into the CCWG and other internet Governance 
initiatives.
The GNSO Council has agreed (in BA) to James Bladel and Jennifer Wolfe being 
our “liaisons” to the Multi-stakeholder Innovation Panel initiative.
Are there any other such initiatives that the Council should be actively 
monitoring and contributing to via a “liaison” of sorts?


Jonathan



From: John Berard 
[mailto:johnberard@xxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:johnberard@xxxxxxx]>
Sent: 11 December 2013 17:03
To: Maria Farrell
Cc: David Cake; John Berard; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report

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