<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics
Personal View:
I agree with Donna. We want to avoid the many unnecessary surprises and
lengthy delays caused by the surprises that we experienced in Round 1 by GAC
advice arriving well after implementation began. ICANN's herky jerky
implementation of Round 1 made it a laughingstock in the business community and
it needs to rebuild its image as a trusted business partner. Repeating the
phenomenon of surprise GAC advice after applications have been filed will undo
much of the good work of the last several years and I think the Board should
aggressively manage that risk by bringing the GAC to the table early and
keeping them at the table throughout the SubPro PDP.
Best,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Austin, Donna
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:30 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'GNSO Council List'
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics
Thanks Bruce
It was the subsequent procedures on new gTLDs PDP that I had in mind where I
believe it would be beneficial to have structured discussions to either respond
to, or perhaps even avoid, the situation where GAC advice is at odds with the
PDP recommendations. The PDP WG is making progress on a number of topics and it
may be possible to have trilateral sessions before finalization of the PDP
recommendations and GAC advice, or vice versa. If we don't have the opportunity
for such discussion, I fear there will be unnecessary and potentially lengthy
delays.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:02 AM
To: 'GNSO Council List' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics
Hello Donna.
>> On the second point, I really think we would benefit from organized and
>> sometimes moderated trilateral discussions, rather than the Board and GAC/
>> the Council and the Board/ and the GAC and the Council having separate
>> discussions on the same subject. The continuous back and forth on the IGO
>> acronym and Red Cross issues are a case in point. Perhaps this could have
>> been circumvented if there had been an opportunity for open communication
>> across the three groups.
I completely agree the current – GAC-Board, GNSO-Board, GNSO-GAC combination of
separate meetings sometimes spread over multiple ICANN meetings (ie Board might
discuss a topic with GNSO in one public meeting, and discuss the same topic
with GAC at a different public meeting) is dysfunctional. I would much
prefer a structured GAC-GNSO-Board meeting on topics related to gTLDs, where
the GAC has provided advice.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|