ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

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

  • To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Action Item - GNSO/SSAC Liaison(s)
  • From: David Cake <davecake@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 00:32:17 -0400
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=fzc5g2s2X1k9xQNU3V8gMGL9EaQtng5VdzYvZYt35yw=; b=HULwRlVhCOHSwf42fMxR8jrjPHD54ZsGSmzC/jz08Lwg+8wfuUQ3cphEJLauqf6ynK eDrXRASBrkDamSb/8Q0uWuCsEpnQj9/lbIiPMblE1xqdfBQ6qej9OVTxYOyd7t+khu6p XxjCVQR71T+n7nkkytsZsfFPtJ5U5ivTAHcJJ0VUG5FVd8+8I3sSUf+017qVgvURMQLT GGcQAr1czP5vr6ECc/FIMvB2K9oo5UL/YXUmeWtb89vqrj/IrTZAyX7KGo/mc7MNx8mV rQTjnrO5VLVSB0OaW1/6KZFA/d3bNeKOkNfnQLM9ngNSiyVy6A3bUl7OV5zoLo7PRFth VCTQ==
  • In-reply-to: <571B4B19.9050703@julf.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D33FF961.BBF6E%jbladel@godaddy.com> <571B4B19.9050703@julf.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> On 23 Apr 2016, at 6:14 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 1. Continue to pursue formal exchange of liaisons between the GNSO &
>>    SSAC, noting the constraints listed above.
> 
> Not sure a formal liaison is really justified.
        
        One of the points that should be considered is that a formal liaison 
would be able to able to discuss security issues that can’t be discussed 
publicly (under SSAC NDA), and so would be able to perform a function not 
possible through the normal council reports etc. I think its worth considering 
this issue in ongoing discussion. 

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