[council] points re: GNSO response to the GAC Communique

[David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

        As requested, points that will be discussed with the GAC regarding the 
GNSO response to the GAC Communique:
- this is an informal mechanism that does not change any existing formal 
process.
- It is a process to inform the board, so that when the board responds to the 
GAC Communique on matters that also concern GNSO policy and process, it can 
have more confidence that its answers reflect the GNSO position accurately.
- it is purely supplementary to existing processes, including new processes 
introduced by the GAC-GNSO Coordination Group
- the GNSO response will formally be addressed to the board, but the GAC will 
be CCed in the interests of full disclosure and furthering useful discussion.
- It is intended to reflect GNSO policy positions (including, but not limited 
to, consensus policy, but may also discuss other GNSO outputs such as interim 
reports, issue reports, etc) and the GNSO Councils role as the manager of 
generic TLD policy. It is not intended to include all GNSO stakeholder policy 
positions. .
- the GNSO Council does not intend to comment on the GAC Communique where it 
does not concern GNSO policy or process.
- this is a new mechanism we will be trialling, and responses on its form or 
usefulness are welcome

If any councillor (and Mason especially) has anything to add, very happy to 
hear it.

        David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail