ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Action Item - GNSO/SSAC Liaison(s)

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Action Item - GNSO/SSAC Liaison(s)
  • From: David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 19:14:52 -0400
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <D33FF961.BBF6E%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D33FF961.BBF6E%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I agree the SSAC/GNSO discussion should be more free-flowing, and it would 
probably be helpful if Council could be more consistent in putting forward 
specific topics for discussion. I do find some overview of what SSAC has been 
working on useful, but not so useful it should take up the majority of time 
I have been finding on the RDS PDP that active engagement with prior SSAC work 
is very valuable, and so I strongly agree with reinforcing the availability of 
SSAC work. How to leverage planned or ongoing SSAC work is something I feel 
there is still work to be done, and there is a lot of potential. 

I think the formal exchange of liaisons is worth considering, and might be a 
topic for discussion when we next meet. 

Thank you for pursuing this topic. 



> On 22 Apr 2016, at 4:53 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Council Colleagues -
> Continuing with the “spring cleaning” of our Action Item list,  here’s 
> another item that has been in a pending state for quite some time.  
> Yesterday I was able to meet with Patrik  (Chairs, SSAC) to discuss ideas to 
> strengthen coordination between our two organizations, up to and including a 
> formal exchange of liaisons.  As we’ve noted previously, the SSAC’s rules 
> require that any of its members (including a potential liaison) would need to 
> meet the general membership requirements, which include a non-disclosure 
> agreement (NDA).
> Patrik and I also discussed alternatives to a formal liaison that would keep 
> the two groups mutually informed. We both agreed that the standard SSAC 
> presentation/Q&A sessions at ICANN meetings had limited value, and we should 
> revise the format to specifically address topics where either or both sides 
> had specific questions or asks.  
> Furthermore, Patrik noted that some PDPs could benefit from existing or 
> planned SSAC research, and we should reinforce the availability of the SSAC 
> as a resource for new PDPs.  We also observed that there is significant 
> membership overlap between some individuals and groups, and that this should 
> be leveraged to enhance cooperation.  Finally, ICANN Staff can help 
> facilitate communication between the GNSO (Council & PDPs) and SSAC, if they 
> flag topics that have potentially shared interests, and raise this with 
> leadership of all groups.
> Possible action items / paths forward:
> Continue to pursue formal exchange of liaisons between the GNSO & SSAC, 
> noting the constraints listed above.
> Modify the SSAC/GNSO sessions at ICANN meetings to be a more free-flowing 
> conversation about topics that share mutual interests.
> Encourage PDPs and other GNSO groups to consider the utility & applicability 
> of SSAC research in their work.
> Ask Staff to help facilitate information exchange between the two groups.
> I look forward to your thoughts & comments on this subject.
> Thanks—
> J.

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