ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Motion to extend term of GNSO liaison to the GAC

  • To: "<avri@xxxxxxx>" <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion to extend term of GNSO liaison to the GAC
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:10:46 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: acm.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
  • Cc: Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <5571A60D.3090202@acm.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D1968055.3E4A7%marika.konings@icann.org> <55719790.90604@key-systems.net>,<5571A60D.3090202@acm.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHQn4xYkozrnAZb9EeIaSwsyN8xIJ2d6mGAgAAJW3s=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Motion to extend term of GNSO liaison to the GAC
I guess I misunderstood this motion to be specific to renewing Mason's role as 
liaison. 

I agree with Avri that we should assess the overall efficacy of the GAC pilot 
program, but just assumed that was a separate topic. And if for some reason we 
decided to sunset the pilot, then the liaison role would go with it. 

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

> On Jun 5, 2015, at 08:38, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> While I probably agree, I think it would be good to have an analysis of
> what it achieved before we decide to renew it.
> 
> To what extent have things changed?  Do we get input earlier? Have we
> stopped GAC end runs? Or even slowed them down?  Have we made sure that
> GAC concerns where not only fed in early enough in the various
> processes, but are taken seriously and avoided end runs?
> 
> I expect the answer to most of these is a somewhat tepid 'maybe'. 
> 
> So while I am possibly inclined to voting for another year of pilot,
> since it is a pilot I believe I need a bit more information before deciding.
> 
> Also is there a similar move in the GAC to renew?  Or will we be
> renewing it and then asking them to do please do likewise?  Have they
> invited us to renew?  I know the motions say that both GAC and the GNSO
> have already agreed to renew, perhaps we should list the resolutions and
> the statement from GAC that shows this is so.  I think I missed them
> somehow.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
>> On 05-Jun-15 08:35, Volker Greimann wrote:
>> 
>> Dear councillors,
>> 
>> as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending
>> its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to
>> both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the
>> program for FY 16.
>> 
>> I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the
>> current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval.
>> Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Volker
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>