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.BBF6Eemail@example.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <D33FF961.BBF6Efirstname.lastname@example.org>
- 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.