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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri, all, 

the pilot was initially approved for one year peiod (FY15), but the
GAC-GNSO Consultation Group was of the view that more time was needed to
be able to evaluate the pilot and make an informed decision on whether or
not to continue, as such it recommended to the GNSO Council and the GAC to
extend the pilot for FY16 and to this end a special community budget
request was submitted to the ICANN Board (see FY16-18-GAC / GNSO- GAC ­
GNSO Liaison ­ Pilot Project request on
https://community.icann.org/x/TAwnAw), which was subsequently granted by
the ICANN Board.

Best regards,

Marika

On 05/06/15 17:46, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>As long as the pilot is continuing, sure, I am happy for Mason to stay
>in the role.  That is not my issue and I misundertood the motion as
>implying an approval of continuing the program.  I forget, does the
>pilot have a sunset date when it ceases to be a pilot and become a
>steady state practice? Or is nothing so permanent as a temporary
>solution, i.e. the pilot is permanent?
>
>And if Mason is being able to help untangle at least a few issues that
>is a really good thing to hear.
>
>avri
>
>
>On 05-Jun-15 10:56, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>
>> Avri,
>>
>> you raise interesting questions, and I hope we will be able to discuss
>> them here on list and at our next meeting. As Carlos pointed out, this
>> is intended purely to maintain the liaison function, which has served
>> us and the GAC by allowing Mason to convey our thinking to the GAC and
>> the other way round. As Phil pointed out, direct benefits were seen
>> also in the IGO WG.
>>
>> Is it enough to warrant the continuation? I believe it is, but you are
>> right that we should have this discussion. After all, an informed
>> approval is better than just waiving it through.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Volker
>>
>>
>> Am 05.06.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Avri Doria:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>